[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5055-H5061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    HOUSE REPUBLICAN BUDGET PROPOSAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the House 
Republican budget proposal.
  There is a saying which goes ``If you think education is hard, try 
ignorance.'' In today's budget-cutting frenzy, Republicans seem to be 
doing everything possible to establish ignorance as our national 
educational policy.
  Recall that their assault on education started in the cafeteria, with 
their misguided, vicious attack on the School Lunch Program. With this 
latest volley, Republicans have now moved the battlelines into our 
Nation's classrooms, libraries, vocational training centers and, 
finally, to our college campuses.
  The House Republican budget proposal would virtually obliterate the 
Federal role in education. It is a repudiation of this Nation's 
century-old bipartisan, national commitment to enhancing the 
educational opportunities of all of her citizens.
  The House budget proposal is extremist and completely out of step 
with the views of the American people.
  Moving into the classroom, Republicans would abolish or slash 
extremely popular and successful educational programs. Programs like 
Head Start, which they would reduce by $609 million in 1996, cutting 
off services to as many as 100,000 children a year.
  The widely popular school-to-work initiatives that help the majority 
of high school graduates learn the technical skills they need to get 
good-paying jobs.
  Republicans would eliminate across-the-board efforts in 47 States to 
improve reading and writing, to put computers into the classroom, and 
to improve academic standards through Goals 2000.
  The budget proposal virtually eliminates the Safe-and-Drug-Free 
School Program--even though drug use is on the rise among 
schoolchildren.
  Programs that target assistance to 700,000 at-risk, disadvantaged 
children would be abolished. Republican hostility to programs designed 
to lift disadvantaged children out of poverty through learning is 
completely at odds with our highest ideals, as well as decades of 
bipartisan congressional policy.
  Having laid waste to the cafeterias and the classrooms, the 
Republicans move on. They would eliminate Federal support for public 
libraries--the main repositories of knowledge and wisdom in our 
society.
  Their next target is higher education. Their proposed cuts in student 
aid are a dramatic departure from the national
 policy established by nearly every President and Congress since 
President Truman, the Republicans are endangering the American dream 
for millions of working-class families.

  House Republicans recommend cutting student aid as one way to finance 

[[Page H5056]] tax cuts for the rich. The elimination of the in-school 
interest subsidy will increase loan costs for close to 5 million 
students by as much as 20 to 50 percent. Total loan costs could rise as 
much as $5000 for each student borrower. Middle-class families are 
especially hit hard; the average family income of a student receiving 
the in-school interest subsidy is $35,000.
  Just wait until middle-class families find out that Republicans want 
to make it harder for their kids to attend college. Just wait until 
they find out that Republicans are proposing a hidden multibillion-
dollar tax on their kids--at the same time Republicans are cutting 
taxes for the rich.
  Finally, the Republicans save their last attack for the Department of 
Education itself. Their proposal to eliminate the Department would 
leave the United States as one of the few industrialized countries in 
the world without a national department or ministry of education. The 
Republicans claim that their proposal is simply an attack on 
bureaucracy. It's much worse than that.
  The elimination on the only national voice promoting educational 
excellence amounts to unilateral disarmament, leaving our children all 
too defenseless in a fiercely competitive world. We live in the 
information age; this is no time to cut back our commitment to quality 
education.
  In one poll after another, a vast majority of the American people 
express overwhelming support for the Department of Education and a 
strong Federal role in education. In a Time/CNN poll just released this 
week, 77 percent of those polled oppose eliminating the Department. A 
Wall Street Journal poll from last January showed that 80 percent of 
Americans believe a Federal Department of Education is necessary.
  There are ample reasons for this widespread public support. The 
Department is a positive force for education as well as equality. It 
provides one out of two college students with financial aid; it support 
local schools' efforts to strengthen the teaching of basic and advanced 
skills for 10 million disadvantaged students; and it provides 
information about what works in education to schools and communities in 
every State.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget proposal is the most reprehensible and 
irresponsible assault on education by any political party in the 
history of this country. Republicans are sacrificing our children's 
future at the altar of tax cuts for the rich and privileged. If they 
are successful, ours will be the first generation in our lifetime to 
have intentionally left our children worse off.
  This proposal is especially pathetic, coming the month we commemorate 
the sacrifices of a generation who fought 50 years ago to save our 
Nation from ignorance and destruction. Our generation should also 
reject ignorance. This Congress should reject the Republican budget 
proposal.
                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me to join him in expression of absolute dismay at the results of 
the Republican deliberations with respect to the budget.
  I understood when I came to the Congress this January that things 
would be different and that there would be a new Republican majority 
committed to the idea of balancing the budget by the year 2002. I 
understood that. I understood that we had to streamline government and 
perhaps sacrifice some of the programs in many of the areas of concern 
that the Congress has been involved in.
  But never in my life did I dream that the Republicans would attack 
education as vigorously as they have in this budget resolution. I think 
the American people have been blind-sided about what this whole effort 
is about, thinking that simply being for a budget that is balanced, 
that somehow those things that they care about would be saved because 
the Republicans would share their same priorities and concerns.
  I am here tonight to dispel the American public from such 
assumptions, because this budget resolution clearly and categorically 
expresses the new majority's intent to decimate Federal programs that 
have been put in place over the last 30 years.
  I came to the Congress first in 1964, in an election which saw the 
election of Lyndon Johnson. And one of the wonderful things that we 
experienced in that first year was the final commitment of this 
Congress and this Nation because of the call by the American people 
that something had to be done about improving public education and 
making the idea of equal educational opportunity available to all of 
our children. So we enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  The premise of that legislation was to take the resources of the 
Federal Government and to make it available to the poor in our country, 
to the economically disadvantaged, to the people that lived in rural 
America, to those who were somehow unable to enjoy the fruits of this 
opportunity in America called public education.
  That is what our commitment has been over the last 30 years, and we 
have improved it. We have expanded it. We have enlarged our commitment. 
ANd the reason for the ability of the Congress on a bipartisan basis to 
do this is that we shared the priority of this country in our children.
  The new Republican majority comes here and says they pledge their 
commitment to families, to strengthen and embolden the families' 
opportunities for the future. What better way to do it than to 
strengthen our resolve as a nation that education will be our first 
priority, notwithstanding the cuts that have to come perhaps in other 
areas but to pronounce once and for all that, joined together with the 
Democrats, the Republicans will declare education cuts off limits.
  That is what we are here tonight to plead with this House, that it 
embark upon deliberation of the budget resolution tomorrow, to 
reconsider this savage, unthinking reversal of 30 years of progress, of 
support for educational programs.
  It has been devastating. Look at the list. I serve on the House 
Committee on the Budget. I was astounded when we were handed the budget 
resolution 30 minutes after we went into the committee to make these 
decisions. We sat there for 16 hours straight, until
 2 a.m. in the morning, trying to argue logic and reason to the new 
majority, but they voted en bloc. I offered an amendment to restore the 
26 billion dollars' worth of cuts and they rejected my efforts. I hope 
that the whole House will be different.

  Let me just give you an example of some of the cuts that the 
Republicans are offering. Title I, which is the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act that I spoke of that was enacted first in 1965, 
in an effort to try to balance educational opportunities all across the 
country, education is funded locally based upon real property taxes, 
and the communities that are having a difficult time, have large 
concentrations of poor people, people with low incomes cannot finance 
their local school education the same way that rich districts can. So 
we have this equalization going on between local school districts and 
the State.
  But the Congress has laid over this whole pattern a simple edict; 
that is, educational opportunities must not be sacrificed. And so we 
enacted ESEA, title I. One of the major cuts that is being made to 
education is 663 million dollars' worth of cuts in this one area.
  It is tragic. There are cuts in there for Head Start, which has been 
a very important program, which I thought had bipartisan support. Yet 
we see hundreds of millions of dollars cut from that program as well.
  Safe and drug-free schools is being cut back over the 7-year period 
to the tune of about $3 billion. This is an important program. We 
understand that as each generation of children comes through our 
schools, that there are different kinds of problems, violence in the 
schools, drugs in the schools, and so this was the Congress' way of 
responding to it. We see cuts in bilingual education, cuts in the 
public libraries and, as the ranking member of our committee has noted, 
big cuts in the student financial aid program.
  They will deny that these are cuts, but they are cuts. If they are 
funded as block grants, they will be cut. That is the pattern of the 
block grant phenomenon.
  So I urge the people who may be listening to this program to contact 
the offices of their Congress people and put them on the spot so that 
they will be 
[[Page H5057]] able to understand about the programs that they are 
interested in. I urge this House to pay careful attention to the debate 
that will start tomorrow and do not support this resolution if it 
contains the cuts in education as is currently outlined in the budget 
resolution.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. I thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Clay] of the committee for taking this time.
  I think we have reason to be deeply concerned about the cuts that are 
envisioned in the Republican budget that will be presented to the 
Congress tomorrow. And that is because it withdraws the historic level 
of support for education by the Federal Government of the efforts to 
better educate each generation of our children.
  When I went to school, I was assured that the school that I attended 
and the programs that it offered would be sustained by an ongoing level 
of financial support that was steady and that could be counted upon. 
Today that is no longer true. But more importantly, just supplying 
money to education, the Federal Government has supplied leadership, and 
it has
 supplied leadership in trying to work on those programs that take 
young people as they graduate from high school, as they are in high 
school, and move them to the world of work. Yet that is being cut in 
this program.

  What does that program mean? It means for some 70, 75 percent of 
young people who graduate from high school but do not plan to go on to 
higher education, that they will be able to transition, that they will 
be better able to take their place in the American economic system, a 
job that we do not do terribly well currently. Employers tell us that 
all of the time, that young people upon graduation are not fully 
prepared to transition from school to the American economic system. 
That means that they are less productive. That means that they are more 
expensive for employers, and we ought to make sure that that does not 
continue. The program designed to do that is in fact being cut.
  Goals 2000, where we seek to obtain world-class standards of 
curriculum for the students of this country so that we can compete, so 
that our industries can compete, so that our students can compete on an 
international basis because every politician has gone home to his or 
her district and told these young students that they will not only be 
competing against their colleagues in school, against the people in 
their own city or their own State but they will be competing against 
the entire world, and if America is to succeed economically, it 
requires a highly educated, a highly trained work force that will be 
able to adapt to the work places of the future.
  For that reason, we have got to have world class standards as 
children move through our education system so that they can take their 
place in that work force so they can provide the kind of economic 
dynamics that this nation needs to compete internationally.
  Yet what we see, only a year or two in that program, programs started 
under President Bush, continued under President Clinton are now being 
cut and eliminated. That is not the way to the education future.
  What is also rather startling in this budget proposal is that it 
continues an attack on children. In this instance, it continues an 
attack on almost every level of education being presented to children. 
In the Head Start Program, as my colleague from Hawaii pointed out, we 
see cuts where we know we have the ability to dramatically influence 
the future and the direction of that child's education program, those 
programs are being cut. We see programs at elementary and secondary 
education being cut.
  And for those students who seek to go on to higher education, what do 
we learn in this budget? We learn that we are going to substantially 
increase the cost of that higher education, what for many young people 
and their families means either it is going to take much longer to get 
that education, the education is going to have to be stretched out, or 
they simply will not get as much of that education that they would have 
otherwise, when it was affordable.
  Why are we doing that? We are doing that for the sole purpose, not of 
education policy. This is not driven by research. How can we have a 
better education system at the elementary and secondary level? This is 
not driven by research how we can have a better postsecondary education 
at the college level, at the technical school level. This is driven by 
the desire to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this 
country in a disproportionate amount.
  How do they secure the moneys to do that? They do
   that by cutting these programs. And the tragedy is, as these 
programs are cut from our elementary schools, from our middle schools, 
our junior high schools, our high schools, that most of these school 
districts, almost without exception anywhere in the country, whether 
they are urban or rural, whether they are suburban districts, will not 
have the ability and do not have the ability to make up for these cuts.

  So what that means is, although the Federal dollars in total are not 
that great compared to what we spend in the Nation, they provide vital 
dollars that link together the educational efforts in our cities and in 
our rural areas. When those dollars are gone, there is very little 
opportunity, if any, in the district that I represent. Most of the 
schoolboards run an exact day-to-day operation trying to figure out how 
to pay for their programs, how to make the fiscal year work out and how 
to keep the quality of their programs up.
  They are losing that battle. And now in the middle of that battle we 
hand them fewer resources to deal with that issue. What does that mean?
  That means that children that would have had the opportunity of 
better trained teachers, of smaller class sizes, of better curriculums, 
of better technical materials and the availability of technology, 
computerization, and other programs will simply have that postponed or 
will go without. That means, in fact, that the education of the 
children of this Nation is going to suffer.
  It need not be that way. If the Republicans would simply stop trying 
to provide these tax cuts to the wealthiest of their constituents and 
understand that we would be much better investing that money in the 
children of the future, in the students who are currently in school, to 
make them more productive, to make them more literal, to help them 
understand the fundamentals of reading and writing and computing and 
critical thinking and to put money into the training of their teachers, 
that is when we reap the bounty as a nation.
                              {time}  1900

  We do not reap the bounty as a nation by simply giving those who do 
not need a tax cut a tax cut for political purposes.
  We ought to be very careful when this budget comes under 
consideration on the floor over the next 2 days in the House of 
Representatives. I would hope that the people that we would represent 
and those who serve on school boards and those who volunteer in the PTA 
and those who volunteer in the classrooms and those who teach our 
students would become engaged in this debate, because this debate is 
about more than money. This debate is about whether or not the Federal 
Government will continue to provide direction and provide technology 
and will provide expertise and will provide research and resources to 
better the education system in this country from what it is today for 
the next generation.
  This is more than about money because it really is about the quality 
of that education. Because if we starve a system that is barely getting 
by in most localities today, if we withdraw these Federal dollars, 
quality is what will be compromised. It will come in the form of a 
larger class size, it will come in the form of the field trip 
postponed, it will come in the form of the computer not purchased, it 
will come in the form of the training for teachers that is postponed, 
but it will come in the form of reduced quality for our children.
  Mr. Speaker, this generation owes the next generation more than that. 
We owe them better than what we are about to hand off in this budget.
  [[Page H5058]] There are many subjects and there are many concerns 
before us, with the cuts in Medicare, with the cuts in student loans, 
with the cuts in education, with the cuts in agricultural programs. But 
let us understand that when we lose the opportunity to educate the 
children of this Nation, very often that opportunity is lost forever. 
We ought not to be doing that. We certainly ought not to be doing that 
in the name of social progress or trying to kid the American people 
that they and their families and their children and their communities 
will be better off after these cuts in education are made because it 
simply is not so. It will not turn out to be so, and it diminishes the 
future and the horizons that these young people, who are capable of so 
much more than we are even asking of them today, it diminishes their 
futures and their horizons. They are entitled to more than that and 
they are entitled to better treatment than this Republican budget gives 
them that we will debate on the floor tomorrow.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding and for taking this time.
  Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
ranking member of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities for setting up this special order so we can talk about 
the budget cuts that we will consider the next couple of days.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak with a little different accent from some of my 
colleagues, but I learned in Texas, even though I live in an urban 
district, that you cannot eat your seed corn and expect to provide for 
your future and the Republican majority's budget is doing just that.
  The budget is intended to move this country to a balanced budget and 
I agree, we should work toward that end and we started during my first 
2 years here in Congress. However, I strongly disagree with the
 Republican majority's plans on how they go about balancing the budget. 
Education is one of the areas that a person can directly affect their 
income. In other words, education is our seed corn and this budget will 
eat that seed corn.

  On the average, a college graduate earns just under $60,000 while a 
high school dropout earns just a little over $20,000 a year. Congress 
should not be deemphasizing education by cutting the Department of 
Education and by cutting the Department of Education or the education 
programs by billions of dollars. That is our seed corn in this country.
  One program which will receive these cuts is the title I funding 
which is due to be cut which would not allow 700,000 disadvantaged 
youth to take part in extended classroom time. Title I education funds 
in Texas alone would be cut $66 million. That is our seed corn for 
these children.
  The Republican majority claims to believe in the war on drugs while 
at the same time cutting the funding for the safe and drug-free 
schools, in Texas alone, $29 million.
  Another area which the Republican majority claims they support is 
self-improvement. We all want to expand our horizons, yes, but in the 
Republican majority budget proposal, Perkins student loans are cut by 
$1.1 billion, for someone who wants to improve themselves, $1.1 billion 
in cuts.
  Perkins loans provide low-interest loans to the 700,000 students who 
cannot afford to pay tuition while they attend schools, and we are 
talking about a loan.
  If the Republican budget passes, we will be eating our seed corn.
  One fact the Republican majority failed to take into account is that 
one out of every two college students today receives some type of 
Federal assistance to go to college. Not all students are headed for 
college but the Republican majority cuts programs such as bilingual 
education in our elementary and secondary education program and even 
adult literacy which moves the adult person through the process who may 
not be going on to college.
  Congress should help all Americans to reach the highest point in 
education, not just to benefit that person because of their effort on 
building their self-esteem but for very selfish reasons, because a high 
school dropout earns a little over $20,000 but a college graduate earns 
just under $60,000. They bring additional tax revenue to our country to 
pay for the future. Again, our seed corn.
  Congress can ensure revenues by maintaining an educational system 
that is the envy of the world because we educate everyone. We try to 
provide the education for everyone. Let's provide our Nation's future 
and provide education funding for everyone. Let's don't eat our seed 
corn.
  Again, I thank the chairman, or the ranking member for that time. 
Hopefully after the 1996 elections, you will be chairman.
  Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank the ranking 
member of the Education Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, for 
putting together this special order and making it possible for some of 
us to express our concerns about this budget proposal that we see 
coming out of the new Republican majority.
  Let me focus first if I may for a few moments on some of the greater 
picture here that we have to deal with.
  First, we heard for several months that in this whole attempt to 
balance the budget and pass a balancing budget amendment, that no one 
would touch Social Security. Well, now we know that that was not true, 
because in the Republican budget proposal, there will be a cut of $24 
billion between 1999 and the year 2002 that will cost the average 
Social Security recipient about $240 in the year 2002.
  We were told that all this was necessary and we had to go about this 
because it was necessary to balance our books. Yet we now know that the 
Republican majority wishes to have a $353 billion tax cut which goes 
mostly to wealthy people. The greatest amount will go to those who earn 
incomes above $100,000 and principally those earning over $200,000. You 
could expect to get back about $20,000 if you are wealthy. If you are 
middle income, well, you get about 1/40 of what that wealthy person 
would get. Yet somehow we have to pay for that $353 billion tax cut.
  How? We see it now in terms of education. About $20 billion now will 
be footed by new families that have kids that want to go to college 
because now when it comes to going to college, when it comes to getting 
that student loan, those students will be paying more money. It is a 
$20 billion tax cut for families with kids going on to college to pay 
for tax cuts mostly to wealthy people. What does that mean?
  If you are in college right now and you take out a loan after this 
budget should pass, get ready to pay more for the interest because you 
would have to start paying interest the day you take out your loan, not 
6 months after you graduate. The way it is done now, we subsidize it at 
the Federal level so that we do not somehow encumber a student's 
ability to go to school by saying, ``You now have to start paying 
interest on that loan you have taken out. Get that education first, 
then you can do it.'' That is gone.
  We are also going to charge our schools, our public schools, K 
through 12, moneys because we are going to cut off all sorts of 
programs including innovative programs that make it possible for us to 
reform the way we teach and provide innovative programs.
  In Los Angeles, there is a program called LAMP, L.A. Metropolitan 
Project, which is a public-private partnership. We are getting $50 
million in Los Angeles from the Annenberg Fund, a foundation which is 
giving $50 million for the L.A. Unified School District to come up with 
innovative ways to reform itself. It is a very large district. We are 
now seeking private dollars from the private sector to help match the 
$50 million grant and we are going to try to do what we can to get the 
local governments and the State and Federal governments to come in as 
well. But here in the cuts that are occurring to programs like Goals 
2000 which we passed last year which is for the purpose of reforming 
and innovating, we cannot do it anymore because that money is gone.
  Perhaps most curious of all that we are seeing being done with the 
budget is that while we are cutting education, cutting student loan 
grants and moneys for people to go on to college, cutting back for 
people for Medicare to 
[[Page H5059]] the tune of $280 billion, while we are increasing the 
cost for Social Security recipients, we are increasing spending on 
defense.
  This is a department that obviously we need to provide moneys for 
because we want to have national defense. But I do recall at some point 
that we did have $500 toilet seats coming from the Department of 
Defense. I do recall the millions of cost overruns that we saw in the 
Department of Defense. Yet no cuts. In fact, a $69 billion increase 
over the next 5
 years. That does not seem to me to be a fair way to allocate the heavy 
cuts. If we are going to cut programs like education 30 percent, or in 
some cases 100 percent, why are we not doing a thing to touch the 
Department of Defense, the largest single program outside of Social 
Security?

  Yet, we are going to touch Social Security, Medicare, our kids in 
school, our kids who wish to go to college. It makes no sense 
whatsoever.
  When I take a look at the cuts that are occurring and I say to 
myself, why is it that we made so much of an effort at the Federal 
level to try to help our schools reform, when we know that the Federal 
Government helps schools to the tune of about 6 percent of all that is 
spent in our schools nationwide. Most of the money comes from the local 
school districts and the State governments. The Federal Government 
quite honestly has a very small role relative to the States. But 6 
percent can still be quite a bit. Two percent of our Federal budget 
outlays go for education, just 2 percent. That 2 percent when you think 
about the gross domestic product, the entire productive capacity of the 
Nation per year is less than .5 percent of our GDP, goes to education. 
That is our commitment right now at the Federal level.
  We are now being told that we should cut it out, if not entirely, by 
a dramatic and drastic amount. It makes no sense, because we would not 
have some of those gifted and talented student programs that we have 
now in schools, some of the bilingual education programs, the programs 
for the kids of Army personnel who are increasing the cost of those 
local school districts to run their schools, we would not have some of 
that support because those are programs that the States and local 
governments did not have. That is why the Federal Government is so 
important.
  Why do we see this happening now? Mostly because we have to pay for 
tax cuts, $353 billion worth of tax cuts. You can lump all the cuts to 
education, all the cuts to higher education to colleges, you can lump 
that together with all the cuts to Medicare and add the cuts to Social 
Security and you still don't pay for the tax cut that goes mostly to 
wealthy people. A scary proposition we are hearing but that is the way 
it is.
  I must say, Mr. Speaker, and to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Clay], the ranking member who has made available this time, that that 
is not the way this country wished to go, whether it was in the 
election of 1994 or in previous years or today. I think if the people 
of America knew the truth, they would say this is not the way you 
balance a budget. You don't cut off the head to try to save the body. 
You try to make sure that you reform and you do it in a very rational 
way. This is not rational in any sense of the word. Reason has been 
thrown out the door.
  I hope that what we do, I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Clay] and the rest of the Members who are standing up here, is to 
somehow bring some sanity back to the debate.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of all of the previous speakers who have covered the subject 
very well, and they, like myself, are shocked, outraged and I think all 
the American people should be shocked and outraged by the proposal in 
the Republican majority's budget for the liquidation, the elimination 
of the Department of Education, the eradication, total, of the 
Department of Education.
  In 1995, in a year when we are facing tremendous global competition, 
we are proposing to do what no other industrialized, civilized nation 
has proposed to do and that is eliminate any kind of central guidance 
or central influence on education. Among industrialized nations, we are 
unique in terms of our lack of control at the top of education. We do 
not have a centralized control of education. We do not have a 
federalized system of education. The Federal Government plays a very 
minor role on the periphery, sort of, of education.
                              {time}  1915

  In Japan, the education ministry is centralized, runs education in 
all parts of Japan from the cradle to the grave. In France, a very 
highly centralized education ministry, Germany, Great Britain has begun 
to decentralize and try to do a little more of what we do in terms of 
giving more control over education to local boards and local areas.
  We go to the other extreme. We have too little influence and too 
little participation in education. We have so little that, as you heard 
from the previous speaker, the Federal Government is only paying 6 
percent of the total bill. At one point we were responsible for about 8 
percent of the total spent on education in this country and now the 
Federal Government is paying only about 6 percent of the total 
education bill; that is State government, low already, and local 
government which pays for most of our education.
  That is too little. That is extreme. We are proud, and I think we 
should always continue the tradition of local control of education, but 
local control would not be threatened if we move from the present 6-
percent expenditure up to as much as 25 percent. If we were providing 
25 percent of the resources for education and we would have a 
concomitant amount of influence, that means we still are only 
influencing the decisionmaking to the tune of 25 percent. Local control 
and State control would still be in charge of 75 percent of the 
decisionmaking. So it would not be an extreme. I think it would be a 
happy medium, happy medium between the two extremes. Some countries 
have gone to one extreme, too much centralization. We have too little, 
and now we are facing a proposal of totally eliminating the Federal 
Government. Our participation at this point is very important because 
despite the fact that we provide so little of the funding, the central 
direction and the guidance that has come from the Department of 
Education through the title I programs has been very important. The 
States, although they get very small proportions of the overall budget, 
they are quick to obey the rules and they are quick to follow the rules 
of the Federal Government in order to be able to qualify for those 
funds. And they are also influenced very much in the process toward the 
improvement of their education system.
  We have had a history recently starting with Ronald Reagan when he 
appointed a commission to produce the report called ``A Nation At 
Risk.'' The Federal Government began to realize that we are at a 
disadvantage in this very highly complex society. With all of the 
global competition that we have we were at a disadvantage with so 
little Federal participation.
  So the movement toward increasing the Federal influence started with 
Ronald Reagan, ``A Nation At Risk,'' and then George Bush came with 
America 2000. Of course President Clinton followed through with Goals 
2000, which is really an adaptation of America 2000 still based on the 
six goals that were arrived at at the Governors' Conference which was 
convened by President Bush. We were moving in the right direction, and 
now we have a budget process that was set in motion with the majority 
Budget Committee that is like, you know, barbarians burning down the 
temple of our civilization, the American civilization. The pillars of 
the temple of the American civilization rest on an educated population, 
and to destroy the guidance and destroy the participation of the 
Federal Government in the process of education is a reckless
 and stupid act. It is a dangerous act.

  We should be outraged. We should be not only shocked, but we should 
resolve that we will not let this happen in America.
  The majority budget is not the only budget on the floor, however. We 
will have other considerations.
  We have shown that we can meet some of the objectives that have been 
set out by the majority. They have insisted that the budget be balanced 
by the year 2002. We do not agree with 
[[Page H5060]] that. And we do not think you have to be so hasty. We do 
not think you have to put America in a pressure cooker and force the 
issue of balancing the budget to the tune of billions of dollars being 
cut over a short period of time. We do not think Medicare should be 
cut. We do not think Medicaid should be drastically cut, and most 
people are not even talking about the drastic cuts that are being made 
for Medicaid, which is serving the poorest people in the country. We do 
not think all of that has to happen.
  We offer an alternative. The Congressional Black Caucus alternative 
budget will be on the floor on Thursday, and it offers an alternative. 
We balance the budget by the year 2002. We meet that challenge, but we 
increase the budget for education. This budget boldly sets forth 
investments in the activities which keep our Nation prosperous at home 
and competitive in the global arena. Without hesitation, we have 
declared that education must be the Nation's No. 1 priority in 1995 and 
for the next 7 years. Though the amounts we have proposed are still not 
adequate, our budget alone has proposed substantial increases for 
education and other Function 500 activities like job training which is 
related to education. We have proposed to invest more than $27 billion 
over the 7-year period increasing the budget of education by 25 
percent. We are going to increase the budget by 25 percent, and most 
important of all, we have rejected any notion that the Department of 
Education should be drastically and dangerously downsized and 
completely liquidated. This budget does that and it is balanced.
  How is it balanced? Because if you set forth priorities, and you 
determine what we should spend money on, and you move forward to spend 
the money on those priorities, then you can get the money you need for 
that function by cutting other places where there is waste. So we have 
about 500 billion dollars' worth of cuts in existing programs. We cut 
the F-22 fighter plane, which is manufactured in Speaker Gingrich's 
district, we cut that out completely. That saves $12 billion. We cut 
the Seawolf submarine; we do not need another Seawolf submarine. We 
make those cuts, and we also have almost $600 billion in the closing of 
corporate tax loopholes, and in the elimination of corporate welfare.
  The American people do not know, the American people really would be 
shocked if they took a look at a chart which I have which shows that 
from 1943 to the present the share of the tax burden which is borne by 
corporations has gone from 39 percent to 11 percent in 1995.
  At one point the share of the tax burden which is borne by 
corporations went as low as 9 percent, in 1990. So, from 39 percent of 
the tax burden it is now down to 11 percent. At the same time, the 
share of the burden has gone from 19 percent for individuals and 
families up to 44 percent. We presently have a situation where families 
are paying 44 percent of the tax burden while corporations are paying 
only 11 percent.
  So one way we were able to maintain Medicare and
   Medicaid at the same level and also increase the budget for 
education was to close the corporate tax loopholes and to end corporate 
welfare, and by doing that we are able to get the money to go forward 
the priorities that America ought to be setting in the year 1995.

  In the year 1995 we ought to be able to look forward to a nation 
which is a learning society, which is very much dependent on a highly 
educated population, not only in order to make our industries more 
competitive but in order to make our society more civil and our society 
more orderly.
  Let me just close by indicating some of the individual items that the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget is able to fund in the area of 
education. We increase the funding for higher education title III 
assistance to historically black colleges by 20 percent. We increase 
the Federal TRIO programs for disadvantaged students by 12.5 percent. 
We increase funding for title I to $9.65 billion over 7 years. That 
amount would serve the total 100 percent of poor youngsters who are 
eligible for title I. We increase the funding for the education 
infrastructure, and that is an amount of money proposed by Senator 
Carol Moseley-Braun of $600 million to help repair schools and new 
construction is some areas where safe schools are needed.
  We provide an appropriation for family learning centers and libraries 
which has been authorized in legislation, but not funded. This would 
give ordinary citizens access to the information highway. Whether you 
can own a computer or not, your public library would be able to give 
you access to the information superhighway.
  We increase funding for individuals with disabilities by up to 18 
percent of the total cost. We increase funding for Head Start over the 
7-year period, the budget cycle, we increase funding for Head Start to 
the point where every youngster who is eligible for Head Start would be 
able to get a place in the Head Start program, up to $8 billion is the 
total.
  So we have compiled, we have provided a bold budget, but at the same 
time we have also laid out, made decisions about what the priorities 
should be, and the No. 1 priority is education.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, first of all let me thank those 
who participated in this special order to bring about a fuller 
understanding for this Nation as to what these budget cuts will mean in 
the field of education.
  This is not just a question of balancing our budget. This is an all-
out war on knowledge that we are witnessing. It is comprehensive and it 
will affect education from preschool through graduate school. It is 
consistent with an overall plan to benefit the rich at the expense of 
the poor and the middle class.
  The proposal that is being advanced is extreme, it is shortsighted, 
and it puts an end to the long-term tradition of bipartisan support for 
education.
  The new leadership of this House did not attempt to sit down with the 
minority and effectuate a kind of program that would still preserve the 
most important features of education in this Nation.
  In addition to the budget, the 1995 rescissions of the majority, if 
they become law, would eliminate funding for safe and drug-free 
schools, would eliminate Goals 2000, would eliminate funding to promote 
parent involvement in school improvement,
 would significantly reduce financial aid for deserving college 
students, and would eliminate a total of over $1.6 billion for fiscal 
year 1995 education funding.

  If it passes, it will be a disaster, Mr. Speaker, for hundreds of 
thousands of students who want to and are qualified to and should be 
able to go to college. It will be a disaster, Mr. Speaker, for those 
who want to be in Head Start but will not be able to join. It will be a 
disaster for our school lunch programs where thousands and thousands 
and tens of thousands of our students will go to school hungry, will 
come home hungry because they cannot afford to pay for a lunch, and 
this Government has a responsibility, indeed an obligation, to be a 
party to addressing some of these major problems.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, after more than 12 years, I have ceased to 
be amazed at the shortsighted and inconsistent arguments made to 
position or posture ourselves in order to avoid the repercussions of 
doing the wrong thing.
  On one hand, we are told that America needs a renewal of its basic 
values.
  Well, one of the values instilled in children for as long as I can 
remember is the benefit of a good education--most of us know from 
personal experience, or the experience of friends and neighbors, that 
prior generations--usually from the middle- and low-income families, 
have always preached that the way to succeed is with a good education.
  I guess this was a mistake--apparently education is only for the 
rich--because the way that some are treating college education 
opportunities, only the daughters and sons of the rich have any 
opportunity to attend college--and I mean the really rich.
  My kids have done well in their careers and are now just beginning to 
send their children off to college--and finding that a year of college 
now costs as much as some homes--$25,000 just for tuition.
  My kids were able to earn their tuition through summer jobs and part-
time work at the local fast food restaurant--but not any more.
  Now you have to have a graduate degree to be able to afford 
undergraduate tuition.
  And the people in charge will now--with their slash and burn budget--
only make it more and more difficult for the middle class to ever 
achieve what their parents found to be the normal possibility of a 
college education.
  [[Page H5061]] What has this country come to?
  Twelve years of past policies supporting failed financial 
institutions and failed military hardware systems and failed trickle-
down economic theories has led us from the wealthiest nation in the 
world to become potentially one of the poorest--with no prospect for 
recovery unless we stop some of the crazy changes that are taking 
place.
  So, are we going to finally get our fiscal house in order? Balance 
the budget? Without touching Social Security? And without cutting a 
dime from defense spending?
  Sound familiar?
  It should. It is the 1982 Economic Reform Act of 1995.
  A massive tax cut for our wealthiest campaign contributors paid for 
by eliminating the one tax break for the poor working stiff that even 
George Bush thought was a fantastic idea.
  To sacrifice the earned income tax credit--the only possible reason 
the father of two could even consider taking a job at minimum wage 
rather than going on welfare--is absolutely ludicrous.
  As my friend from Ohio keeps saying--beam me up.
  

                          ____________________