[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 60 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4966-S4974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 1158, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making 
     rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Hatfield amendment No. 420, in the nature of a substitute.
       D'Amato amendment No. 427 (to amendment No. 420) to require 
     congressional approval of aggregate annual assistance to any 
     foreign entity using the exchange stabilization fund 
     established under section 5302 of title 31, United States 
     Code, in an amount that exceeds $5 billion.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the D'Amato 
amendment is temporarily laid aside in order to consider an amendment 
to be offered by the minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 445

                   (Purpose: To propose a substitute)

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, 
     Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. 
     Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 445.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have had a good debate now for the 
last couple of days on the issue of rescissions and the need to provide 
supplemental funding for the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration, FEMA.
  What we have not had a good debate about, however, is about 
priorities, and about values, what it is we ought to do with the 
resources, as limited as they are, that we have available.
  It is our view we ought to have a debate of that kind, and we ought 
to consider where it is we want to put resources, how it is we want to 
direct those resources to affect the greatest number of people and do 
the most good.
  That is what this amendment intends to do. This amendment recognizes 
that there really is a twofold purpose in what it is we are trying to 
do with this bill.
  We are obviously trying to ensure that FEMA has the adequate 
resources necessary to continue the extraordinary job that they do in 
providing emergency assistance to communities all over the country. But 
we are also very sensitive to the need to continue to move ahead with 
meaningful deficit reduction.
  This session of Congress has been devoted in large measure to 
procedural questions about how it is we bring down the debt. I am very 
disappointed by the fact that, frankly, our best procedural effort to 
do that in a meaningful way, a budget resolution, which is required 
from the Budget Committee tomorrow, will not occur at the time required 
by law.
  While we talked about procedure, the majority has been unwilling so 
far to use the procedure we already have to do exactly what we say we 
need to do.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I am disappointed that we have failed to 
produce the budget resolution necessary to accomplish what we say we 
really need here.
  Mr. President, the issue of priorities, as we consider deficit 
reduction, brings Members to the floor on many occasions. Again, it 
does this morning. We recognize while we need to reduce the deficit, we 
also recognize that the long-term deficit is going to be determined in 
part by the needs of Americans who may depend upon the Federal 
Government, and by the ability they have to go out and become 
meaningful, productive, taxpaying citizens.
  The only way we can ensure working families have the capacity to be 
productive, taxpaying citizens, is that we invest in their future with 
what limited resources we have.
  The amendment that I am proposing this morning--and supported, I 
would say, by the overwhelming majority if not all of our colleagues on 
the Democratic side--is an amendment that simply says ``Whatever else 
we do to reduce the deficit, the one thing we ought to do is to be 
cognizant of how important it is that we protect our children and the 
investment that we need to make in children.''
  This amendment would simply allow Members to tell 1 million children 
across the country that it is our intention to help them, that it is 
our commitment to them and to deficit reduction, both, that we hope to 
articulate in this amendment.
  Our legislation would provide protection for 5,000 children when it 
comes to child care. We want to tell working families that we want them 
to go out there and do the best they can to generate the income that 
their talents will allow, and we will try to assist where it can be 
provided with the child care needs they have, in order to be a 
productive and an involved working citizen.
  Child care is the first installment of a multiple array of tools that 
can help working families do their job better. The same in Head Start. 
We want to protect 9,000 children in the Head Start Program who 
otherwise will be cut off, who otherwise will not have the opportunity 
to begin their early childhood development in a meaningful way, and to 
ensure that when the time comes they can become good students, good 
working people and good family members. That is what Head Start does. 
And we are hoping to protect the 9,000 people who otherwise will be cut 
out, without the advantages of this amendment.
  We are also telling those young adults, those young Americans who 
want very much to be able to go to college and at the same time help 
their country, that we remember them as we change our deficit 
priorities. We want to tell 36,000 young people that it is important to 
go out through national service and develop the capacity they need, to 
go to college, to learn skills, to do the things necessary to become 
important and taxpaying citizens in this country.
  No one denies the incredible impact that the Women, Infants, and 
Children Program has. We will tell 70,000 mothers and children that we 
will help them as well, not by increasing the deficit.
  I emphasize here that this amendment is completely paid for by 
shifting priorities to allow Congress to reduce the deficit but protect 
women, infants, and children in the program that has demonstrated a 
remarkable capacity to assist young families as they begin to meet the 
challenges of life.
  We also recognize that school is critical. If we are going to invest 
properly in families, in working families, we have to ensure that our 
investment in education is adequately provided.
  Aid to schools, impact aid, is of critical importance. And under the 
pending bill, $16 million overall will be lost. In my State of South 
Dakota, over one-half million dollars would be lost. The impact that 
will have on schools that rely upon this funding, as I indicated 
[[Page S4967]] over the last couple of days, would be devastating.
  We want to say, without equivocation, when it comes to priorities, 
education is at the top of the list. Only the educated are free. Only 
the free can participate adequately in democracy. Only if we ensure 
adequate educational investment can we ensure the freedom that we so 
dearly love in this country. Aid to schools, and providing better 
schools for almost 1 million students is what this amendment does as 
well.
  Mr. President, I will have much more to say about the amendment and 
about what we are attempting to do later on this morning.
  Let me emphasize how important this amendment is. How important it is 
that we provide adequate funding for FEMA. How important it is that we 
provide meaningful deficit reduction, but at the same time that we meet 
those two objectives. It is critical that we protect 1 million children 
who otherwise would be cut out of needed assistance.
  Mr. President, I will return to the floor shortly to say more about 
the amendment and about our intentions with regard to this investment. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I want to commend our 
leader, Senator Daschle, for the work in developing this amendment 
which he has proposed, and which I welcome the opportunity to 
cosponsor. I find this a compelling amendment, and as Senator Daschle 
mentioned yesterday, I believe that we will develop bipartisan support.
  Basically, the focus of this amendment is on children and education. 
We have some other features in there with such as the national service 
program, but it is primarily an amendment that reflects our priorities 
on education and children.
  What it is saying regarding these programs included in those 
rescissions is there were appropriations which went through the 
legislative process, went through the House and Senate, and were signed 
by the President of the United States. The programs include Head Start, 
chapter 1, school reform programs, and day care programs. There are 
families out there across America that were depending on those 
programs. There are mothers and fathers who believed that their 
children were going to be involved in the Head Start Program and they 
could count on it. There are mothers and fathers who thought that their 
children would participate in the chapter 1 program, a program 
redeveloped and redesigned, refashioned with strong bipartisan support 
last year to improve it. There are parents who had believed they might 
be able to improve themselves and the lives of their children because 
day care programs would now be available to them.
  I looked forward to the debate on this amendment. The amendment 
itself was responsible in terms of its offset, although I think it is 
commendable in any respect. I think it would have been important for us 
to debate this issue. It has been in the works for some period of time. 
The leader had indicated yesterday that we were going to offer this 
amendment. We had heard last night from the majority leader--after 
there was a whole debate on matters that were not directly related to 
these rescissions all day long, after many of us had been on the floor 
in the early afternoon looking for the opportunity to debate this 
amendment--that we could debate these amendments. Where are the 
amendments? When are we going to deal with them? Can we get a time 
agreement?
  Now we are notified that that particular measure is going to be 
pulled, withdrawn, effectively denying us the opportunity to debate 
this particular measure. As I understand it, in its place is going to 
be a conference report. I will have more to say about that report, and 
I think other Members will have more to say about later in the morning 
about how it treats a handful of individuals who are trying to escape 
paying their fair share of the tax system and escape all kinds of tax 
responsibility.
  I think one of the key elements of where we are as a Congress has 
been the issue of priorities and where we are going as a Congress. We 
had, over the period of this past week, in our committee, our Human 
Resource Committee, the repeal of Davis-Bacon legislation which had 
been in effect for some 60 years. This repeal will diminish the 
economic power of construction workers whose average income is $27,000 
a year. We are in the middle of an economic assault on working 
families.
  We have also had the assault on the President's proposal which would 
ensure that we were not going to further and encourage the whole 
striker replacement worker phenomenon that has been taking place across 
this country, weakening the economic rights of working families.
  We have seen the purchasing power of average workers in this country 
decline dramatically over the period of recent years. Many of us have 
been pointing out that we ought to consider those particular measures 
against what is happening to the other members of their families, to 
their children in this instance, to the care of their children and the 
education of their children. We expected to have that opportunity now 
to make that case in terms of the Head Start programs, which have been 
tried and tested and reshaped and supported by Republicans and 
Democrats, by funding for the chapter 1 programs, by the return of the 
summer job programs, the voluntary service programs, the President's 
national service program.
  We have seen these programs cut at a time where we see, over in the 
House of Representatives, the leadership talking about using these cuts 
to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and corporations in 
this country. These are legitimate public policy issues and questions 
the American people ought to have an opportunity to express their views 
on through their elected representatives.
  I think these are the questions being put to the U.S. Senate today to 
debate and discuss in this amendment that had been worked by the 
minority leader. We had heard earlier today, if he offered this 
amendment, there were going to be parliamentary maneuvers to try to 
second-degree it so we could not have, effectively, the debate and 
discussion on it.
  Mr. President, we know there is the power to be able to do that. But 
I, for one, would certainly have urged the leader to continue to offer 
this particular proposal in form after form until he was at least given 
the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on his amendment, a position 
which has the strong support from many on this side and, hopefully, 
even from some on the other side.
  So, Mr. President, I want to just make very clear I am very hopeful 
we will come back to this measure and that we will debate the 
rescissions here in the U.S. Senate, that we are going to come back and 
we are going to have an opportunity at that time to talk about this 
amendment. It affects $42 million in Head Start programs, $2.5 million 
in Healthy Start programs that will help 8,000 to 10,000 low-income 
children who lose nutrition assistance during their preschool years; 
$8.4 million in child care funds that will deny 5,000 children of 
working families the support they need for day care.
  There are only about 4 or 5 percent of our working families that are 
able to afford decent child care. We have a program to try to provide 
assistance to working mothers for child care programs. These funds had 
been appropriated, and this rescission cuts $8.4 million in that child 
care program and $1.3 million in children's mental health. It 
eliminates services in 11 sites and 11 States to children with mental 
and emotional disorders. The amendment would have restored the funding 
under chapter 1 for 70,000 educationally disadvantaged children who 
have special needs, the $55 million in the Goals 2000 that would have 
provided help and assistance to 13,000 school districts across this 
country, to try to strengthen, at the local level, academic achievement 
and accomplishment; the support for safe and drug-free schools.
  Those particular funds provide a combination of resources for safety 
in schools. I will bet there are a score of politicians making speeches 
right now about the importance of safety in schools. Well, here we had 
an opportunity to do something about it. We have an opportunity to 
restore some funds for safety in schools, and $100 million that had 
been actually appropriated is being withdrawn. We want to put that 
back.
  We have the $30 million School-to-Work Program. The School-to-Work 
[[Page S4968]] Program is going to be the basis of a major overhaul of 
training programs, the concept of which has been basically accepted by 
Republican leaders in the House and the Senate as being a key element 
in revamping of youth training programs. School-to-Work has strong 
bipartisan support to provide some opportunity for the 70 percent of 
the children who do not go on to higher education, to move them from 
school into work, the partnership between the private and the public 
sectors. There was $30 million that would have been eliminated for 
them.
  The amendment would have restored the TRIO Program, $11 million for 
the TRIO Program which has been one of the most successful programs for 
the disadvantaged students, to give them the help and assistance in 
terms of education support and health support.
  Education technology--$5 million for education technology. What you 
learn in the schools is directly related to what you are going to earn. 
We have a deficiency in terms of technology in the schools across this 
country and a very significant imbalance in technology availability 
between the wealthier schools, both private and public, and the most 
disadvantaged schools. We have developed a small technology program. 
That program had been cut back.
  There is also a cutback in the national service program, even though 
the service program had been worked out with Republicans and Democrats 
alike, and we had agreed to phase in the funding--$300, $500, $700 
million over 3 years. Yet we see a significant reduction in funding for 
that program.
  We have already seen some positive returns from the national service 
program, as well as other programs that are related to youth and youth 
training, programs designed to do something about young people, with a 
number of them having dropped out of school. We lose about 400,000 
young people a year. In many instances, they are individuals who do not 
have a sense of hope or a sense of opportunity or a sense of future, 
and they are the ones who fall into trouble in their local communities 
and are a source of trouble in terms of the law. We have been revamping 
and reshaping and improving many of these programs. Yet they are being 
cut.
  So many work force training programs are being effectively 
eliminated, and this eliminates an opportunity to do something for the 
education and training and employment of young people. The Daschle 
amendment shows a sensitivity to these programs by restoring them.
  Mr. President, I think we should have had a discussion about where 
the priorities are in this body. We should have been given an 
opportunity to debate these questions. The Daschle amendment had been 
thought through, and its shaping had been given a good deal of 
attention.
  It is a thoughtful, responsive amendment that restores many of the 
cuts that are going to be particularly harsh on children and education. 
Those are not areas that we ought to be cutting back. Those are areas 
in which we ought to be investing more. Certainly, just throwing money 
at problems is not the answer, but how we allocate resources is a 
pretty clear indication of what our Nation's priorities really are.
  What we know is that when you have decent, good, effective education 
programs and you cut back on them, what is happening is that you are 
basically increasing social costs and decreasing revenues in the long 
term for this country. It makes no sense at all.
  We, I think, deserve an opportunity to debate these issues. When the 
measure comes back, we will have an opportunity to do so, not only in 
this amendment but also in follow-on amendments that will target 
education and target children's issues. So we will have a chance to 
speak to these issues.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with the leader and the 
score of other cosponsors of this amendment in debating these issues 
later.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week Republicans in the other body 
passed a bill that pokes huge holes in the social safety net for 
America's children. Their welfare reform bill guts the School Lunch 
Program and other programs that kids rely on for nutritious meals. Now, 
in the Senate, we are debating a rescissions bill that will slash 
another set of programs that are so critical to these very same 
children.
  I am talking about Head Start, the Child Care and Development Block 
Grant Program, and Summer Jobs for Youth, among others.
  The rescissions bill cuts Head Start by $42 million, even though the 
House did not cut funding for this program at all. As a result, 9,000 
children will lose the chance to get a head start on learning. Head 
Start is a comprehensive child development program, addressing a wide 
range of critical needs: health, nutrition, social. Perhaps most 
important, it puts a premium on parent involvement and helps to forge a 
bond between parents and their children's education.
  The Child Care and Development Block Grant Program was cut by $8.4 
million. Again the House bill had not cut. This 20 percent reduction 
means that 5,000 fewer kids will qualify for child care assistance. 
There are an estimated 21 million children who live below 200 percent 
of the poverty line in this country. About 8 million of them live with 
a single parent who works at least part time or with two parents who 
both work at least part time. These 8 million children are members of 
working families whose income make them eligible for child care 
assistance. In fiscal year 1993, only about 750,000 of these kids 
actually got assistance.
  Now, we are considering a bill that will drop another 5,000 children 
from the program. Some of these kids live in homes where, without 
assistance, their mothers will not be able to afford to work. Low-
income families already pay 27 percent of their income on child care--
it is ridiculous to think that they can afford to spend more than that.
  S. 617 cuts all funding for the 1996 Summer Jobs for Youth. This 
means that about 615,00 young men and women--1,300 in North Dakota--
will not work. According to a 1995 Labor Department report, the program 
greatly increases the summer employment rates for participating youth. 
Researchers estimate that, for every three jobs provided under the 
program, two young people worked who otherwise would not have.
  I just do not understand why some would want to slash successful 
programs like these. I agree with my colleagues that we should pay for 
what we appropriate for disaster assistance. However, this bill asks 
that children and low-income families pay a disproportionate share of 
the check.
  I support the Daschle amendment to restore much needed funding for 
these programs. It channels resources where they belong, in our 
children. It supports nutritional assistance, training and education, 
and housing, and it is fully paid for.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Daschle 
amendment to H.R. 1158, supplemental appropriations and rescissions 
bill, that would restore funding to many important programs that aid 
children and support housing programs. This amendment restores valuable 
funding for several programs that support and educate our children. Few 
programs are as important to the future to our country as the program 
that assists our Nation's children.
  Mr. President, the Daschle amendment also preserves $36 million of 
funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] 
Fund. This amount falls short of the original $125 million, however, I 
believe it is a good first step to address the critical problems that 
exist in our economically distressed communities.
  I have long been committed to empowering disadvantaged and minority 
communities to help themselves and to invest in their own communities. 
While I recognize the need to cut the Federal deficit, I believe it is 
important to achieve the national policy goals of revitalizing 
communities, increasing access to credit and investment capital, 
promoting entrepreneurship, and rebuilding private markets in 
distressed neighborhoods.
  As in other States, Colorado's cities have neighborhoods which lack 
access to resources for business and economic development. I know that 
many rural communities in Colorado have never had proper access to 
credit and banking services. Many of them have no 
[[Page S4969]] lender who wants to give them a chance or give them 
hope. But, in fact, there are many creative entrepreneurs in our rural 
communities who are idea rich, but resource poor.
  Mr. President, I believe community development financial institutions 
will open new markets for conventional lenders while giving borrowers 
access to previously unreachable sources for capital and credit. 
Community development financial institutions are specifically dedicated 
to revitalization. They possess specialized expertise in community 
development and are successful in tailoring loan products and services 
to meet the needs of low-income and minority communities.
  In the case of native American communities, reservations generally 
are among the most disinvested and poor areas with weak economies. 
These communities, in particular, are in desperate need of creative 
banking and financial services. I believe the CDFI fund is a first step 
and an important step in addressing these critical needs.
  The CDFI fund is a next generation Federal initiative that combines 
private entrepreneurship, extensive leveraging of Federal dollars and a 
strong commitment to self-help credit. I believe the CDFI fund will 
fill market niches that banks and other conventional lenders are not 
serving, especially in native American communities, and provide bridges 
between unconventional borrowers and conventional lenders.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered 
by the Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader's amendment is the pending 
business.


                 Amendment No. 446 to Amendment No. 445

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] for Mr. Ashcroft, for 
     himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Gregg, and 
     Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 446 to amendment 
     No. 445.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I am not certain how 
much longer this bill will be on the floor, because it is pretty 
obvious to this Senator that what we have here is a political exercise 
by the other side.
  If the President of the United States does not want this bill, it is 
all right with me. But he is not going to get the other bill, either, 
the one on defense.
  So I would just say to the White House, if they are serious about 
reducing spending, as the President indicates he is from time to time, 
and if they really want the first supplemental, the defense 
supplemental that passed that is now in conference, then I think they 
had better go to work on what has become nothing but a political 
exercise. And that is what we are about to engage in here today. That 
is certainly the right of every Senator.
  But my view is that if there is all this concern about children, I 
did not see it expressed when we had the balanced budget amendment up 
here. Some of the speakers voted for the balanced budget last year and 
against it this year. I do not know why they forgot about the children 
for the next 10, 15, or 20 years if we do not balance the budget and 
make tough choices. But some never make tough choices. They make tough 
speeches, and then they want to come back and add some here, add some 
here, and add some here.
  I must say, in every case in the so-called Daschle amendment, there 
are already additions in spending in all of these programs. But they 
want to add just a little more so they can come to the floor and make 
this political argument that somehow they are going to protect the 
children and we are going to destroy the children of America. I mean, 
it is nonsense. It is preposterous. It is ludicrous.
  So the amendment we have offered will give Senators in this body who 
want to have real spending cuts the opportunity to vote ``aye''--real 
spending cuts.
  IRS, $100 million--that ought to be a favorite of everybody; 
AmeriCorps, $206 million; foreign operations, $91 million; Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting, $47 million--all the President's budget cuts, 
$337 million. Surely the Democrats will vote for that.
  Legal Services Corporation, about $6 million; Radio Free Europe, $98 
million; youth bill, $38 million, for a total of $927 million in real 
cuts. It does not devastate any of these programs, but they are real 
cuts.
  I want to congratulate my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, the 
Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for their initiative.
  I guess I did miss a couple. The actual total would be $1.3 billion, 
which will be discussed by my colleagues from Arizona, Missouri, and 
Pennsylvania.
  We would like to have a time agreement on this amendment. We would 
like to make some progress on this bill, and we would like to also vote 
on the Daschle substitute, although there could be additional second-
degree amendments to it.
  Then at 12 o'clock or shortly thereafter, we would take up the 
conference report dealing with self-employed. It is very important we 
do that today because April 15 is not far away and, hopefully, the 
President--I am certain he would--sign it as quickly as he receives it, 
so that we will be reinstating the 25-percent deduction. Many people 
are waiting to file their tax returns.
  The Senator from Massachusetts indicated he might want to discuss 
that at length because of a Senate provision which was dropped in 
conference. We put the provision in. I feel strongly about the 
provision, about those who leave the country to avoid paying taxes.
  We also put in the committee report, at my suggestion, that any 
additional legislation would be effective on February 6--February 6. 
Not next week or not last week, but February 6. So when we address this 
issue again in the tax bill--it will probably be in the reconciliation 
package--when we have additional hearings and make certain that we are 
following the correct procedure, I expect that provision to be in the 
next package. It was in the Senate package. We did have hearings on the 
Senate side, but only 1 day of hearings.
  There were some serious questions raised. The report will be due in 
June, so that will give us adequate time to address that issue. So, 
hopefully, we can pass the conference report with a very brief time 
agreement. There will be a record vote on the conference report. 
Hopefully, we will have record votes on the other material.
  I say to my colleagues, there will probably be at least two or three 
votes today and, depending on the White House response--if they do not 
want this rescission bill or anything in it--then we can continue to 
have this turkey shoot out here with everybody offering amendments to 
make a few political points. We already had 8 or 10 on the other side. 
I assume they have 30 or 40 more. That is fine with me. If we want to 
make this a turkey shoot, then the White House should understand, that 
is it and that they are not going to get either bill.
  So I will just say to the Chief of Staff at the White House and the 
President of the United States that if he is serious, we are serious; 
if he is not serious, that is fine with us.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to speak in strong support of 
the amendment of the majority leader which will have the effect of 
restoring $1.3 billion in disaster assistance for 
[[Page S4970]] California. It will have the effect of reducing 
additional spending from last year's budget in the form of rescissions, 
including, for example, $337 million in budget cuts that were requested 
by President Clinton but are not in the rescission package as it exists 
right now. It further rescinds several other programs to levels near to 
or the same as the House rescission package. For example, as the 
majority leader says, it cuts $100 million from the IRS bureaucracy, 
and makes other changes.
  The specific areas in which the rescissions are increased are the 
AmeriCorps Program, which I will speak to in a moment, the IRS, as I 
mentioned, some foreign operations matters, which you will be 
addressing, Mr. President, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--as 
I said, $337 million in cuts that were requested by President Clinton--
the Legal Services Corporation and a program called youth bill, and 
some others. The total, as the majority leader said, is over $1.3 
billion, close to $1.4 billion.
  The majority leader has indicated an interest in having a time 
agreement and, as a result of that, I think we will begin by being 
relatively brief on a few of these items. But if it is the desire of 
those in the minority to debate this at length, then we will be 
prepared to do that. It is our hope that the majority leader's will is 
reflected in an agreement by the minority as well.
  So let me begin this debate by focusing on the first item on this 
particular amendment, and that is the AmeriCorps Program, the so-called 
voluntarism program in this country, which is not voluntarism at all 
but rather has the Federal Government taking taxpayer dollars to pay 
people to work as volunteers.
  Obviously, that is an oxymoron. You are not a volunteer if you are 
being paid for your volunteer activity by the U.S. Government. But that 
is the nature of this program, and that is obviously one thing that is 
wrong with it.
  I think perhaps one of the most important things I will say here, Mr. 
President, is as follows: This amendment is similar to the amendment 
that the House passed by a vote of 382 to 23. So the House made the 
degree of rescissions that we are talking about in this amendment by 
the overwhelming majority of 382 to 23.
  If the Senate cannot reflect that significant consensus of the House 
of Representatives in a similar number, then I think those who are 
watching us today may wonder what this body can do. Clearly, we can 
reflect the same consensus that was generated from the House of 
Representatives.
  What this would mean in dollars is that AmeriCorps funding for fiscal 
year 1995 would total almost $159 million. During a time of severe 
budget constraints, we are asking of our programs that are currently 
funded at one level, can those programs be reduced in their funding to 
reflect the fiscal position that the United States is in right now? We 
cannot afford all of these programs, at least to the degree they are 
being funded.
  As a brandnew program, AmeriCorps cost American taxpayers $367 
million last year. Now the President wants to increase the cost to over 
$800 million for 1996. What we are suggesting is, we do not shut the 
program down, but we reduce the funding of the program to the same 
level that the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to fund.
  AmeriCorps is not an effective jobs or education program. We submit 
that it will not increase voluntarism in our country.
  Mr. President, students of history will recall that one of the most 
profound observers of the American scene, as this country was getting 
going in the early 1800's, was a French historian by the name of Alexis 
de Tocqueville. Alexis de Tocqueville came to this country to see what 
made it so dynamic, why we were seeming to do so well just 50 years 
after our Revolution, and what experience he could take back to France 
to tell his fellow citizens how they might improve their society as 
Americans seemed to be doing.
  One of his chief findings was that Americans banded together in all 
sorts of voluntary arrangements to help each other in their local 
communities. They banded together in groups with names and just as 
neighbors helping neighbors--to put up a barn, to help a family, to 
work in a community, to work in the churches or the synagogues.
 In one way or another, he observed, Americans volunteered to help each 
other, and that was one of the significant differences between America 
and the old Europe from which he came. In fact, he reflected on this by 
saying, ``America is great because America is good.'' And if America 
shall ever cease to be good, America will cease to be great. One of 
those elements of goodness to which he was referring was this dynamic 
concept of voluntarism that characterized the American society.

  That voluntarism has continued until this day. But I submit that the 
AmeriCorps Program--U.S. Government paid volunteers--undermines the 
concept of voluntarism, as Alexis de Tocqueville had observed. Groups 
such as the Salvation Army, Arizona Clean and Beautiful Project, the 
Crime Victim Foundation, St. Mary's and Andre House food bank, and 
others all around this country, commit millions of hours to voluntarism 
every year. Today, Americans, age 18 and up, volunteer, without pay, 
almost 20 billion hours of their time. That is a 50-percent increase in 
hours since 1981. Turning voluntarism into a wide-scale public job 
program, I submit, will undermine public and private philanthropy. It 
stands the concept of voluntarism on its head.
  A final point, Mr. President. It is not just that it undermines 
voluntarism, and that it is costly. But it is taking money away from 
other programs which really could be of assistance to America's youth.
  The AmeriCorps project is not based on need, as you know. It does not 
promote voluntarism based upon the need of the people who participate 
in it. Students are paid $7,400 for work and given $4,750 toward 
education costs for 2 years. In addition, recipients are guaranteed 
health and child care benefits, and in some localities, other benefits. 
For the average $20,000 to $30,000 cost per year, per student in the 
AmeriCorps Program, eight needy students could receive Pell grants at 
$2,400 apiece. So we could educate eight needy students in this country 
for the same thing that it costs us to pay for one ``volunteer'' under 
the AmeriCorps Program.
  This $20,000 stipend is worth more than the individual income of 
nearly 40 million working Americans.
  So, Mr. President, it seems to us that given the fact that it does 
not promote real voluntarism; that it is costing a tremendous amount of 
money; that the House voted overwhelmingly to reduce the funding to the 
level that we are proposing here; that it takes money away from 
programs which could really assist needy students who need funding to 
continue their education, we should adopt the amendment of the majority 
leader, thus reducing the amount of funding for the AmeriCorps Program.
  I am going to yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania in a moment. I 
have one final point here. Over 2,800 volunteers--20 percent of the 
20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers--are assigned to Federal agencies. This is 
a volunteer program designed to help people in local communities, but 
20 percent of these people are assigned to the Department of 
Agriculture, Department of the Interior, National Endowment for the 
Arts, and others. The federally funded Legal Services Corporation for 
example has been awarded funding for 44 AmeriCorps volunteers, costing 
taxpayers almost a million dollars.
  This is not voluntarism, Mr. President. This is just one of the 
programs that we would reduce the spending for in order to achieve the 
$1.3 billion-plus in rescissions that make up the amendment of the 
majority leader.
  At this time, let me yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania to 
further discuss this point.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. What I would like to do is talk 
about what this amendment does. The first thing it does is restores 
President Clinton's request for $1.3 billion in disaster assistance for 
California earthquake victims, and disaster relief in numerous other 
States. The minority leader's proposal would remove that funding that 
is needed for the victims of natural disasters, and our amendment seeks 
to restore that money. That was the principal reason this bill was 
before us--this is a disaster relief supplemental. That is the reason 
this bill is here. The rescissions has turned into, maybe as the 
majority leader said, a 
[[Page S4971]] ``turkey shoot,'' with a lot of other amendments being 
thrown on. The House decided to do more rescissions, as we are doing 
here. But the underlying purpose, the reason this bill is here, is that 
this is a supplemental appropriation bill to provide for disaster 
assistance. What the minority leader has done is take away the 
underpinnings for the bill and reduce what the bill is for in the first 
place and to fund a whole lot of other programs that are in the bill.
  Our amendment pays for this $1.3 billion to be put back in, by 
rescinding some of the provisions here to equal the House level. The 
House went through and rescinded certain programs. What we do is match 
their rescissions. The Senator from Arizona talked about one such, the 
AmeriCorps Program, which I will touch on, and the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting was another.
  In addition to those rescissions, what we also did was to adopt some 
of the President's suggested rescissions. The President came forward in 
his rescission package with $337 million in additional budget cuts. 
These are things requested by the President. I have taken the 
opportunity, while sitting here, to examine these rescissions and to 
find out what these were all about. What I see is really almost a 
precursor to the line-item veto. These are a bunch of line items that 
were put in by the Appropriations Committee here in the House, and in 
the Senate, earmarks--earmarks being things that are put in by certain 
Members for demonstration projects in your State or in your district, 
which takes money that is not authorized by the House or Senate and 
signed by the President, things that are nice little projects for back 
home. And we have here $337 million worth of these projects that the 
President, rightfully, said these projects are really the definition in 
the sense of pork. Let us go after these projects. I agree with the 
President.
  So we put these $337 million of projects in this rescission amendment 
to restore the money back to California and other States. So this is an 
attempt not only to try to get some comity with the House and try to 
reduce the levels of funding to what they have wanted but also to reach 
out to the President and say we are going to put your disaster 
assistance money back in, but we are going to adopt your rescissions.
  A lot of criticism is made around here of not being bipartisan and 
playing Presidential politics. We are here with this Republican 
amendment, offered by our leader, acceding to the wishes of the 
President. I would be interested to see what the folks in the 
President's party react to try to do what the President wants to do. 
That is what we are doing here today. We are trying to work in a 
bipartisan fashion to craft a good supplemental appropriations bill and 
rescission package.
  Here are a couple things we are not doing in this amendment. We are 
not eliminating the Summer Jobs Program, and that is almost $900 
million. We keep the funding levels up. We are going to get in a fight 
with the House on that. We keep the LIHEAP Program, which the Senator 
from Arizona was going to offer an amendment on and deeply wanted to 
put it in this bill. We kept that fully funded because we feel that low 
energy income assistance is important. That is another $1.3 billion. So 
that is about $2.2 billion of additional rescissions which the House 
requested that we did not because we have set priorities.
  Some of our priorities that just did not quite make the grade are 
things like the AmeriCorps Program. The Senator from Arizona did an 
excellent job in discussing how the nature of voluntarism is being 
corrupted by paying volunteers $20,000 a year to volunteer. I wish I 
got paid that to volunteer my time. That is what this program does. It 
is a $7,400-per-year stipend to volunteer, plus a $4,750 tuition credit 
per volunteer, plus medical benefits and child care. All that totals 
about $20,000 a year. That is not counting the roughly $15,000 a year 
it takes for administrative and overhead costs per volunteer. It almost 
costs as much for overhead as it does to pay them.
  This is not an efficient program. Roughly half the money being 
siphoned off here to Washington or other places around the country in 
bureaucratic payments and the money--hard-earned taxpayer dollars--that 
could be used to support families and put food on the table is going to 
pay bureaucrats and people, many of whom in this program are wealthy.
  The AmeriCorps Program is not a means-tested program. I am sure a lot 
of people will find that to be shocking. This AmeriCorps Program is not 
for the poor. We have doctors, we have people who are spouses of 
doctors, and children of wealthy people. They all qualify. This is not 
for young people. Do not think of this as a youth corps of 
disadvantaged youths that are out there doing the public service. No, 
no, no, no, no.
  I think it is up to 60 years of age, irrespective of income. They can 
come in, get the stipends, and get up to 2 years of educational grants. 
We have the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who said we could 
take one of the grants and turn them into five people for Pell grants 
for every one volunteer we have on AmeriCorps.
  No, we will put them to work. Who will they work for? We have 1,200 
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1,200 AmeriCorps volunteers; 
525 for the Interior Department; 210 for the Department of Justice; 135 
for the Environmental Protection Agency; 60 at the National Endowment 
for the Arts. This is not out there in the community doing the kind of 
work that this program has been sold as.
  Again, administrative costs are high. This is not means tested. 
Anybody qualifies, irrespective of income, and they get a benefit which 
is actually even greater than the GI bill. I had the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps talk to me and tell me that recruitment is being hurt in 
the Marines and other branches of the service because of the AmeriCorps 
Program, because they can have a nice job here stateside, doing nice 
things, maybe doing good kinds of things, and get paid, not only as I 
said before, their stipends, but $4,725 per year in educational grants, 
up to 2 years of service, while the GI bill provides not $4,725, what 
the AmeriCorps bill does provide for, but $4,800, $75 more, for putting 
3 years into the Marine Corps.
  Now, think about that. No wonder it is hurting recruitment. No wonder 
it is causing a problem. This is just do-goodism of Government, 
thinking they can do everything for everybody and pay them at the same 
time. It is a complete distortion of what I think most people see as 
the role of voluntarism in America.
  We believe that this is a prime target for rescissions. I think we 
are very generous. We leave the program at least running. We do it at 
reduced levels. The present level of funding is $370 million, and it is 
supposed to go up next year to $610 million. We cut that back to 
actually about $157 million. I think that is awfully generous for a 
program that clearly is out of step with where America wants to take 
this country, as far as its allocation of resources and spending.
  The other area that I wanted to touch on very briefly, if this debate 
does go on longer, we will come back and talk about it further, but I 
know the Senator from Missouri wants to talk on some of the foreign 
aid/foreign operations matters, the other area is the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting.
  I have, and I am sure every Member of this body has received numerous 
letters and phone calls about protecting ``Barney'' and Big Bird making 
sure that we do not cut out money for Public Broadcasting.
  I cannot say it any more plainly. If it comes, and I look at the 
chart of the Senator from South Dakota about helping children and the 
things that we need to do to provide money for WIC Programs and food 
stamps and other things that are so important and essential, if we 
cannot cut $47 million out of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 
then we have no business standing up here and saying we are serious 
about reducing the deficit.
  That is just amazing to me. We talk about corporate welfare. I hear 
so much talk over there about we have to get rid of corporate welfare. 
This is the most outrageous of corporate welfare, for programming and 
for things that can simply and easily be provided by 
[[Page S4972]] the public through public contributions, or with 
assistance, as we already do.
  These are nonprofits. And they already get, in a sense, a Government 
subsidy. They already get breaks in having to pay for their rights of 
communication. We already provide certain benefits. To throw additional 
money at that when they do not take advantage, as they do not, of the 
royalties available to them from programs like ``Barney'' and ``Sesame 
Street'' and others, they get virtually nothing back in royalties if 
showing these programs on their public television stations.
  If they are not going to take advantage of the opportunities that are 
before them to help fund their programming, then why should the 
American taxpayers, working hard to put food on their families' tables, 
pay to support Public Broadcasting, when, at least in our area in 
Pennsylvania, the corporate salaries are similar to those of some of 
the chief executive officers of some of the major corporations in 
Pittsburgh.
  I think it is, again, I cannot stress strongly enough, if we do not 
have the courage to stand up and cut funding for a program like the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, when we have some people getting 
100-some stations, many of them learning-type stations, educational 
stations, with the onset, as we will see in bringing up the 
telecommunications bill next week, of almost the irrelevancy in future 
years of cable and a lot of other mediums because of direct satellite 
communication into your home--it will happen very shortly--if we cannot 
get rid of a dinosaur of a program like funding for the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, then we do not have the right to say we are a 
Senate that is on the verge of entering the 21st century with setting 
our priorities.
  I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the majority leader. This amendment is critically important, 
and serves as a continuing demonstration of our willingness to curtail 
expenditures which we cannot afford.
  Much has been said today about the children of America, but the best 
way to ensure their future is to make sure that we are fiscally 
responsible. It is important to make the hard choices for the right 
reasons. That, Mr. President, is the number one investment that we can 
make in the children of America.
  Last night, late at night, this House made a mature and difficult 
decision about a substantial number of courthouses across the country 
that we simply could not afford. Mr. President, $1.4 billion was cut, 
and in the process, a commitment to the next generation was kept.
  I rise today, Mr. President, in support of a particular aspect of the 
majority leader's amendment. Specifically, an additional $91.6 million 
from the foreign operations budget. I think when we are talking about 
the children of America, and the future of this country, we all 
understand that there is going to have to be some sacrifice made on 
their behalf. To take 1.4 percent out of the foreign aid budget is not 
asking for too much. It is simply saying that when we are considering 
sacrifice, when we are considering restraint, people around the world 
will need to share in that sacrifice.
  Some might ask, ``Is this not isolationist?'' I hardly think a 1.4-
percent rescission makes an isolationist out of the United States of 
America. It simply does not, it will not, and it should not. And to 
argue as such is to fundamentally mislead the American people.
  The point is we are going to have to ask our allies abroad to share 
in the kind of restraint needed to move toward a balanced budget. But 
of equal importance, Mr. President, I would argue that it may be that 
the best kind of foreign aid we could ever provide to countries 
overseas is the kind of benefit they would receive from a stable, 
fiscally sound U.S. economy.
  Mr. President, we are looking at a major restructuring of the way in 
which we deal with foreign entities. As part of that, it is important 
that we begin to send a signal, to friend and foe alike, that we are 
moving to put our fiscal house in order.
  It is important to note that all of the funds that were recommended 
to be rescinded in the House were unobligated funds. The Senate number 
was $100 million, theirs was $191.6 million. Now, if the House could 
make those reductions without really impairing priority programs, I 
think we ought to match their efforts. We are talking about an 
additional .0067 multiplier, which would provide the additional $91.6 
million.
  Mr. President, we have spent almost half a trillion dollars over the 
last 45 years to increase peace and prosperity abroad. Unfortunately, 
in many cases, there is very little to show for our efforts. We need to 
think carefully about how we deploy resources and what a strong 
America, economically, means to the rest of the world. I cannot 
remember anyone cornering me in a coffee shop in Camdenton, MO, and 
saying, ``You have to support more funding for U.S. peacekeeping,'' or 
``To be sure I am firmly on board when the next AID package comes 
before the Senate.''
  It is time we start to look at our foreign aid budget and begin 
allocating funds only in those areas in which America has vital 
national interests at stake. The American people are a generous people, 
but they want a return on their investment.
  Mr. President, when we talk about fiscal belt-tightening and the 
responsibility associated with it, a minimal reduction in foreign aid 
must be part of that mix. The House bill cuts foreign aid accounts by 
nearly $200 million. Our bill only has $100 million. The addition of 
the $91.6 million would, again, move us in the right direction.
  As I mentioned earlier, last evening we started. We started a 
constructive effort by cutting $1.4 billion in an essential function of 
Government. The judicial process is one of the most fundamental 
components of American government. Courthouses are important. But our 
children and the next generation of Americans are also important. Mr. 
President, we cannot afford to spend what we do not have. This package 
represents a small, reasonable step in the right direction.
  Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have been trying to understand the 
substitute amendment versus the underlying Daschle amendment. I would 
like to say what I believe, based on about 10 minutes of study, this 
does.
  As I understand it, what the amendment of Senator Daschle, the 
minority leader, does is it takes $1.3 billion from FEMA, fiscal year 
1997, and it restores certain cuts that have been recommended for 
children and educational programs.
  What I understand the majority leader's amendment to have done is it 
restores fiscal year 1997 FEMA funds, $1.3 billion, and it cuts even 
more deeply. It cuts the children's and the education programs, plus it 
cuts a whole series of programs including Radio Free Europe, legal 
services, foreign operations, the biological survey, libraries, the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, airport and airway trust fund, 
highways, AmeriCorps, and the youth bill. So, essentially, as I 
understand it, we have two rather clear choices on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate, one of which is the Dole approach which is much deeper, 
and the Daschle approach that says let us make cuts but what we cut, 
let us not cut the most vulnerable in our society, the future of our 
society--children and education.
  I want to take a couple of minutes and speak to that because I think 
it is a worthy attempt, even as rescissions are being made, to take a 
good look at what we are doing and saying as we talk about investment 
in the future. As we talk about investing in economic infrastructure, 
should we also invest in our human infrastructure of which the most 
important part is our children? In order to secure the future of our 
children, the most important part is their education.
  I would like to speak specifically to the Dole amendment. We all know 
that, regardless of what version it is, there is going to be welfare 
reform in this session of Congress. We all desire it. And so to people 
in this Nation, as 
[[Page S4973]] has so often been said by Senator Gramm of Texas--the 
time has come for people to get out of the cart and help push it.
  In order to push it, it means go to work. But if you are poor, if you 
are female, if you have children, and if you are on welfare, you are 
going to need child care to go to work.
  So, does it make sense as we talk about investment in our future to 
cut child care? I think it does not because we just complicate the 
problem downstream. So I believe that rescission, that cut, is not a 
prudent investment in our future.
  Head Start--what is Head Start? Head Start is a concept. We have 16 
million youngsters in this Nation growing up in poverty. The concept is 
that if we can get children young with their parents to come in at a 
very early age, if we can counsel with those parents--these are poor 
parents, poor children--if we can counsel with them, if we can begin 
early on to teach them the discipline and structure of learning that 
when they get into the grade they will be able to keep up with their 
class instead of what so many know happen, that there is an emotional 
dropping out followed by an intellectual dropping out, followed by a 
physical dropping out of children in the elementary school years--guess 
what? What has been found is that, if you apply the Head Start concept 
well, not sloppily but well--which involves bringing in the family--
children do better. They graduate with higher grades. Guess what? By 
the age of 19 they are much more likely to get a job. That is the 
investment in the future. That is what Head Start speaks to. Properly 
carried out it works.
  So I ask the question: Does it then make sense in this rescission 
package to cut back on Head Start? I answer that question by saying no, 
it does not. Let us take another one that has been bandied with on the 
floor. AmeriCorps. I have just heard AmeriCorps is not just for people 
who are struggling. It is not for the middle class, it has youngsters 
and adults in it, and it has youngsters whose parents are doctors, or 
so on. It is my understanding that over 75 percent of those admitted to 
AmeriCorps thus far have incomes of under $50,000. Do I believe that 
100 percent of the parents of the youngsters going into AmeriCorps 
should have incomes of under $50,000? The answer is, yes, I do. But the 
vast majority of participants come from moderate- to low-income 
families, and AmeriCorps is clearly a worthy program.
  Let me speak as a mayor who more than a decade ago took $1 million of 
community development block grant money in San Francisco and began a 
new program, the first urban conservation corps in this Nation. It has 
since been replicated by 22 big cities. You can imagine the pride I had 
when I had Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles come up to San Francisco to 
learn from us how we took youngsters age 16 to 23, very fragile 
youngsters with no work ethic, with a background of juvenile 
delinquency and began to teach them a work ethic and put them to work 
building bike paths, restoring park areas, painting over graffiti, 
doing public works projects, repairing places in housing authority 
projects. And those youngsters learned a work ethic. They went out at 
the end of the year and could get a job. I think it was the most 
successful program I did.
  This is what AmeriCorps is built on. It is built on the concept of a 
conservation corps where you take young people, where you teach them a 
work ethic and whereas they work, they can earn, and in this case earn 
a college scholarship. It is a vital program. Again, is it as important 
an investment in our economic infrastructure as free trade may be? I 
think it is. Because again, it is teaching our young people a skill 
which they are able to use and then further their education.
  Let us take WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children Program. When I was 
mayor I used to go down to where food was given out in San Francisco. I 
would see pregnant women come in, again many of them undernourished, 
again many of them troubled, many of them not able to provide a 
nutritious meal. Sure. They would go out and buy a bag of potato chips. 
They would eat high-fat food. But they were not nutritious meals.
  What WIC has done is offer an opportunity to develop a cost-effective 
birth system for people who are poor and deprived in this Nation 
because they are able to get some foods that are nutritious during the 
term of pregnancy and produce youngsters who come into this world with 
a chance. In a way, it is a cost-effective investment in our future.
  Let me talk about cuts in education. Today, all across the United 
States of America we graduate kids from schools that cannot read or 
write, multiply, divide or add, recognize China on a map, fill out an 
employment application, or follow a bus schedule. These are actual 
examples. They are not made up. They are true. It is called the failure 
of American public education.
  Where American public education fails the most is in the elementary 
school. That is where Head Start and that is where chapter 1 comes in.
  Chapter 1 again are funds that go to States for basic remedial and 
primary education. It is reading, it is writing, it is arithmetic, and 
it goes to those school districts that have poor children in them. It 
is a very big ticket item for California, the largest State in the 
Union.
  For me this cut for California schools means a loss of $8.7 million 
of the anticipated $729 million in fiscal year 1995. If these 
rescissions are cut, the county of Los Angeles loses $2.5 million for 
reading and writing and arithmetic for poor children. That is what 
chapter 1 does.
  One of the things that I have believed in is that we should go to a 
decentralized public education system. We should allow schools to float 
free. We should provide standards of education for young people. What 
is the degree of proficiency you should have in reading, in writing, in 
math for promotion? What is the knowledge of social service? What is 
the knowledge of science programs that you should have to promote? What 
Goals 2000 did was provide a voluntary mandate to schools to establish 
tough curriculum standards. Is that an investment in our future in 
terms of building a young work corps of youngsters that are able to get 
a job in an economy that is becoming more and more high-technology, 
where you have to understand computers to work in factories?
  I think the answer clearly is yes, this is the future. So Goals 2000 
spoke to that, spoke to tougher education standards. Chapter 1 talks to 
basic reading skills. I think these cuts are not necessary.
  The bottom line is, as I look at the majority leader's amendment and 
the minority leader's amendment, what I see is the possibility of 
putting together an amendment that is bipartisan, that could achieve 
additional cuts, if that is what people are looking for, and not impact 
children and not impact education.
  Now, there are those who believe that education and children are the 
fuzzy issues in our society. I am not one of them. I speak as a former 
mayor. I speak as somebody who has seen a lot of trials and a lot of 
tribulation, who knows the streets. I think the future of America is 
our kids. I think it is wrong to cut from our kids at this point in 
time.
  Pick up a newspaper today and see where another youngster in Los 
Angeles is shot in the head standing at the side of his home. That kind 
of thing must stop. Drug-free and safe schools are cut in this 
rescission package. If there is anything we should be doing it is 
ending drug use at school, it is making schools safe. To do it, you 
have to start early. If you start late, it is too late. If you start in 
the middle school, it is too late. You must start in the elementary 
school.
  Mrs. Reagan said, ``Just say no to drugs.'' And guess what? If kids 
believe that early enough, it works. If you wait until it is too late, 
it does not work. So why at this point in time do we cut drug-free and 
safe schools? Is that a prudent investment in the future? I think not.
  So what I say in a summary sentence or two, just having heard what 
has happened on this floor this morning, there are things in the 
substitute amendment that I could buy. There are things in the 
rescission package that many of us cannot buy. Why not sit down and try 
to put together a package that protects our future, protects our young 
people, and protects our education? I think it can be done if there is 
a will in this body to do so.
  I thank the Chair.
   [[Page S4974]] Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________