[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5116-S5118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S5116]]
               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Daschle amendment 
to the disaster supplemental appropriations bill.
  The amendment makes needed improvements to the bill before us. It 
restores funding for education, job training, and children's programs, 
and it renews the commitment we made in the last Congress to community 
service.
  It would be a grave error is the Senate defeats this amendment and 
decides instead to revoke investments we have already made in improving 
the lives of working families and children to pay for the Republican 
contract's tax cuts for the rich and for tax provisions such as the 
billionaire's loophole that we debated on the Senate floor yesterday.
  Majority Leader Dole said recently that ``the American people want a 
better use of their tax dollars--starting now.'' But only half of the 
cuts in the rescission package are needed to pay for the ongoing 
recovery costs from the 1994 California earthquake. The other half of 
the cuts are being extracted from hard-working families to pay for tax 
breaks for the wealthy, and that isn't fair.
  Amerians are beginning to look behind the rhetoric at the heart of 
the Republican revolution. The fog of rhetoric is lifting, and the 
reality is emerging--an attack on children and families to pay for tax 
cuts for the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our society.
  Congress should not be taking from the most vulnerable and 
defenseless in order to raise even higher the standard of living for 
those who are already well off.
  The new Republican majority is arbitrarily cutting and trimming 
education programs even before our support for schools has had time to 
get to the classroom.
  For what reason? To provide a tax cut for rich Americans? That makes 
no sense. Democrats do not believe in depriving young children of the 
good start they need that is provided in Head Start. Democrats do not 
believe in depriving public schools the help they need to achieve 
reform. Democrats do not believe in depriving college students of an 
affordable education. Democrats do not believe in depriving young 
Americans of opportunities to contribute to their community through 
national service and simultaneously earn money to pay for college.
  The numbers themselves demonstrate the shortsightedness of the 
Republican proposals. Who will contribute more to our county's 
treasury? A college graduate who earns an average of $32,000, or a high 
school dropout who earns $13,000?
  It is poor government policy and poor business sense to adopt short-
term budget savings that will inevitably result in much smaller future 
tax revenues and much more serious long-term social problems. How do 
you support a family on $13,000 a year?
  The Daschle amendment will restore $700 million for education, 
children, and training. It restores these shortsighted cuts and 
preserves the sensible education investment strategy proposed by 
President Clinton and Democrats.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric in the last 100 days about the 
``American people.'' One thing is unmistakably clear about the American 
people--they solidly back the Democratic priority on investing in 
education.
  Two out of three Americans favor increased spending for education, 
according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. That confirms a 
finding in a poll by the Washington Post/ABC News. Eight out of 10 
people favor a balanced budget amendment, but 2 out of 3 say they would 
not support such an amendment if it means that education or Social 
Security would be cut.
  Finally, a poll by the Times Mirror Center for the People and the 
Press found that 64 percent would increase spending on public schools 
if given the opportunity to set Federal budget priorities, while only 6 
percent would decrease spending.
  Among 14 Government programs cited, support for public schools was 
second only to anticrime programs. The position of the American people 
on support for education is unmistakably clear. They want to cut the 
waste and fat in Government, not the muscle of education.
  Democrats understand why there is such strong support for education. 
We are proud to be the defenders of increased investments in students. 
We are proud to be on the side of all those who understand that a 
commitment to excellence in education is the basic underpinning of our 
society and our democracy. Education has made our country great, and it 
will be the key to our future strength.
  A fresh example of the shortsighted thinking is the recommendation to 
cut investments in technology for education. Yesterday, the Office of 
Technology Assessment released an impressive report on teachers' use of 
technology in the classroom. As the introduction to the report states:

       OTA finds the lack of attention to teachers and 
     technologies ironic, for at the center of effective use of 
     instructional technologies are those who oversee the daily 
     activities of the classroom--the teachers.

  Previous reports by OTA and others on computers in schools have 
sounded the alarm about the dangers of technological illiteracy in our 
society. As widely used technologies have become more sophisticated, 
teachers' roles become even more critical. The rescission packages, 
however, also cuts teacher training by 31 percent in the House and the 
Senate by 22 percent.
  In an address to the National School Boards Association on February 
21, Speaker of the House Gingrich called upon school boards to vastly 
increase the amount of money they spend on technology. Currently, 
districts spend three-tenths of 1 percent. ``We are two generations 
behind in introducing technology,'' he said.
  Our Republican colleagues respond to the obvious need for technology 
by cutting an already small Federal technology budget. Star Schools, 
one of the most successful and popular Federal education investments, 
was cut 30 percent by the House, and 15 percent by the Senate. The new 
technology program in title III of ESEA, just authorized last October, 
was cut by 75 percent in the House and 12 percent in the Senate bill.
  Families throughout the country understand that computers, CD Roms, 
interactive video, and other technological advances have opened the 
door to vast amounts of scientific and academic information for 
students. Through these miracles of technology, pupils in classrooms in 
remote communities can meet students from many other lands, participate 
in fascinating scientific projects such as the Maya Cycling Expedition, 
and talk to experts around the world.
  The simple fact, however, as the OTA report makes clear, and as a GAO 
report that Senator Moseley-Braun will release this afternoon 
underscores, is that public schools in this country are years behind 
every other institution in providing students with these opportunities.
  It is important to balance the budget. But it will be an impossible 
task unless students are well-prepared and well-trained to be 
productive workers who earn good wages and salaries, who can support 
their families and pay their taxes.
  Other education investments restored by the Daschle amendment are 
equally important.
  In the last Congress, in bipartisan action--the vote to pass the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act was 77 for and 20 against. That 
bill reshaped the way the Federal Government supports education.
  In ESEA, in Goals 2000, in the Improving America's Schools Act, and 
in the School to Work Opportunity Act, we said to the States: ``If we 
are going to reach the National Education Goals, all students should be 
held to the same high standards, and the States should develop these 
standards.''
  We said ``It's time to cut the redtape. Local schools should be given 
more flexibility to consolidate small Federal programs to that they can 
design comprehensive, coherent reform plans.''
  And finally we said ``Accountability should rest on results.'' 
Instead of telling schools exactly what to do with Federal dollars, we 
said ``You decide what works best and we won't monitor what you do. But 
we will hold you accountable for how much students learn.''
  [[Page S5117]] We backed up our commitment with Federal dollars. 
States responded. Over 40 States have developed plans to use Goals 2000 
dollars. Hundreds of schools have already planned to use their increase 
title I dollars and their new flexibility to see that students learn 
more. At the very moment when schools and States and students are 
responding as we hoped they would, we should not be reducing our 
investment.
  Unless we restore these funds, many of those schools will believe we 
didn't mean what we said. Seventy thousand school children will be 
denied extra help in reading and math. Thirteen hundred schools will 
not be able to implement their plans for school reform.
  Consider what States have already been doing with these funds. To 
pick one district at random, the Lawrence School District in Kansas is 
using Goals 2000 funds to develop new assessments to more accurately 
analyze whether students are meeting high standards.
  Pennsylvania has given Philadelphia $250,000 of its Goals 2000 funds 
to develop clusters, and provide schools and their communities with 
more freedom from local rules in designing their curricula. Some 
schools are lengthening their schoolday and extending education 
services to parents in order to promote literacy.
  Massachusetts is using Goals 2000 funds to support the startup costs 
of 15 charter schools.
  My question to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is very 
straightforward--are these the kinds of activities you want to scale 
back, just as they begin? Are our promises of support false?
  In title I of ESEA, the rescissions are equally irresponsible. Title 
I is the Federal Government's major commitment to the country's 
disadvantaged children. For 30 years, the Federal Government has 
accepted a responsibility to help States educate schoolchildren who 
need help the most. But that commitment has never been well enough 
funded to serve the large number of children who need help.
  Title I has had successes. It has improved basic reading and 
mathematics skills of the lowest-achieving children. It has helped 
close the learning gap between those children and their peers. With the 
help of title I, the achievement gap between black and white 9-year-
olds has narrowed over the past two decades by 18 percent in math and 
25 percent in reading.
  I hear frequently from people in Massachusetts about how their 
children have been helped by this program. One parent wrote: ``Chapter 
I is a blessing! For 4 years we tried to coach our son after his 
regular homework. We created more stress and there was no progress in 
math. Our son is now proud of himself and his work. Thank you is not 
enough.''
  One high school senior wrote: ``Chapter I has helped me to grow. 
Through Chapter I, I am working in groups. I get along better with 
others than I used to. Chapter I has shown me how to work hard, and 
when confronted with a challenge, I am patient but determined to get 
the job done. The Chapter I math program has helped me gain confidence. 
Now I can do math with others and I sometimes offer my help to other 
students * * * Chapter I has shown me that no matter how stupid you 
think you are there's always someone there to help you reach your 
goals.''
  One parent wrote about the Reading Recovery Program funded by title 
I. ``It has greatly affected my son. He has been able to keep up with 
his class. [It] has lessened his anxiety and helped to make school a 
pleasant experience. Had he not had the benefit of this program I feel 
the experience could have been traumatic. I was most apprehensive about 
sending him to the first grade because I felt he was not capable of 
doing the work. Our son has blossomed because of the attention, the 
one-one-one investment his teacher has made. He now comes home and 
reads us his library books. We never thought our son capable of making 
the strides he has this year and it's only April. It has been an answer 
to our prayers.''
  A teacher in Haverhill writes: ``I * * * had a senior citizen from a 
local nursing home come to my classroom weekly. She spoke French and 
worked with a child in my class who was non-verbal because his family's 
primary language is French. A true friendship developed between her and 
the children in my class. Everyone enjoyed her visits and she looked 
forward to coming every week. She was in a wheelchair and the children 
learned about people with handicaps. It was one of many rewarding 
experiences.''
  Finally, I heard from a student in Plymouth, MA named Steven. Steven 
was an angry young man, aggressive toward any authority figure and 
failing every class. Chapter I was seen as a last resort for him. Now 
he is a corrections officer who is up for a promotion. He recently said 
to his former Chapter I teacher, ``It could have gone either way. I 
could have been locked in these cells as an inmate if it hadn't been 
for your helping me get through the schoolwork and giving me a chance 
to vent my anger. Thank you.''
  Even though we know this program helps students, schools are not able 
to keep up with their needs. The education needs of disadvantaged 
children are growing, especially in high poverty areas. Evaluations 
show that children in such schools are held to lower expectations than 
children in other schools. They are more likely to fall behind in the 
early grades, and never catch up. First graders in poor schools start 
school scoring 27 points lower in reading and 32 points lower in math 
than other schoolchildren. The initial gap widens in later grades. 
Eighth graders in poor schools are 57 percent more likely to leave 
school by tenth grade than students in other schools.
  Last year, Congress extensively examined this valuable program. We 
authorized major new reforms, and we increased the funds by $300 
million. For 6 months, teachers across the country have been working 
and planning on how to use these funds.
  That may be then and this may be now. But that is no excuse for the 
new Republican majority in Congress to pull the rug out from under 
schools across the country. Unless we support this amendment, 70,000 
fewer children will benefit from title I. And schools throughout 
America will be hurt because Congress is breaking its promise on 
education.
  Another important restoration in the Daschle amendment is $100 
million for the Safe and Drug Free Schools. Among all the Republican 
cuts, this one is perhaps most bewildering of all. There is hardly a 
community in America--urban, suburban, or rural--that is not struggling 
with the tragic effects of violence and the alarming increase of drug 
use among students.
  Students cannot learn when their schools aren't safe. We need to do 
all we can to keep guns, drugs, and violence out of the schools. The 
Safe and Drug Free Schools Program is our primary means to give 
students and schools the help they need in avoiding drug abuse and 
violence. It provides Governors and local school officials with wide 
discretion to assess their own problems and to solve them. It is 
preposterous that Republicans should be proposing to cut back these 
needed funds.
  For example, the Dade County, Florida public school system is using 
the majority of its funds to support a program called ``TRUST''--a 
comprehensive assistance program to help students and their families 
overcome substance abuse problems. The program combines established 
approaches with curricula development, so that awareness of the dangers 
of drugs is woven into students' classes. It uses innovative approaches 
such as alternative intervention that offer students and their families 
a chance to examine their behavior and improve their skills while 
continuing to attend regular classes.
  It is fine to talk about family values and strengthening families. 
But this bill simultaneously wipes out the kinds of help that 
struggling families need. Hypocrisy is the word for such action.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Daschle amendment.
  Mr. President, I see the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee 
with a very distinguished guest, a man I have great admiration and 
respect for. His presence makes me speechless here on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate at this time.
  I withhold the remainder of my remarks and ask for recognition after 
we have a recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator 
[[Page S5118]] from Massachusetts will be recognized after we hear from 
the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

                          ____________________