[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 128 (Thursday, August 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8318-H8359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members that all remarks
should be addressed to the Chair and to the Chair only.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, it may seem incongruous in these days of
90-degree weather and high humidity to be talking about home heating
assistance, but in northern Minnesota, although the glacier retreated,
it makes a return attempt every fall, and lasts well into April and
sometimes May. Last year we had wind chill temperatures of 77 below
zero, midwinter. I visited a home in Duluth where the Energy Assistance
Program was conducting weatherization for an 84-year-old widow with one
leg amputated. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mill in
Duluth and left her a modest little pension. Her total income is about
$480 a month. Half of it was going to pay the energy bill. The Energy
Assistance Program weatherized the home and helped her buy a new
furnace so she could stay in her home and not have to go to a nursing
home.
In the city of Duluth alone, 3,746 households last year received
primary heating assistance.
Look at the record of this program in Duluth, alone: 374 households
received primary heating assistance; their average income was $9,208 a
year. Furnaces were replaced in
[[Page H 8319]]
107 of more households, making it possible for the homeowners to remain
in their homes, rather than seek public assistance in the form of
welfare or be committed to a nursing home. Heating system repairs were
made in an additional 560 households. Of the total number of households
receiving LIHEAP assistance, 926 have children under the age of 6 and
the average household income is $11,400.
Senior citizens account for 712 of the total households served; their
average income is $8,286. There are AFDC families assisted under this
program, they have an average household income of $7,631.
The point I want to drive home is that this program is preeminently
designed for and targeted to the poorest families, the neediest among
us. Cutting these funds, altogether, as this heartless Republican
majority proposes to do, will reduce these people the most among us to
a condition of abject dependency, cause each of them needless anguish
and anxiety, emotional, as well as physical stress, and simply shift
the cost from the weatherization program to welfare or Medicaid and
Medicare. Cutting off these funds will not make the problem go away; it
will only worsen the condition.
But, I want my colleagues to hear the beneficiaries of the Energy
Assistance Program tell the story in their own words, as expressed in
letters to the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency, which serves a
seven-county area of northeastern Minnesota, which is geographically
about the size of New England, excluding Maine:
I've been a widow since 1989 and as time goes on, I find it
very difficult to adjust to all the changes. I live on a
fixed income and with costs of living always rising, I don't
even dare to think of the future. I thank the Lord and ask
him to bless all the people that makes the Fuel Assistance
Program possible.
Thank you so much for the fuel assistance. If it weren't
for this program, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in my
own house.
I thank God for the very existence for your agency. Never
in my wildest dreams did I, as a former middle class American
worker, believe that I could be reduced to poverty level in 3
years. I've always been proud of myself as a self-employed
carpenter, but now have no work to be proud of.
I am a diabetic, and if it weren't for the Energy
Assistance Program, I'm certain I would have a tough decision
to make in deciding between insulin or fuel oil.
I do not know what these previous speakers are talking about on the
other side of the aisle, but if you cut home heating assistance, you
are making people choose between life or death, and that is not right.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during my campaign for the U.S.
Congress last year I met a man who lived in my district. His name was
Dave Exley, and he was a painter, and I got talking to Dave. I was
interested in talking to him. I had an uncle, Joe Ditta, who raised a
family of seven as a painter. I got to talking to him about his
business and what it was like, and he got out something and gave it to
me that I will never forget. It was a paint stirrer, and he told me
that he had been using that same stirring stick to stir the paint for 5
years.
Each time he would use it, he would wipe it carefully off, and he
said he was saving himself about 5 cents a day by using that paint
stirring stick over and over and over again, and he showed it to me,
and he said something to me that I will never forget.
He said, every time you think about spending money or raising taxes,
I want you to remember me because I am trying to feed my wife and my
two sons, and I have trouble making ends meet. At the end of the month
I have trouble making sure I have got enough money to pay the mortgage
and to pay the electric bill.
That is a lot of what this debate is about. We are taking money out
of the hands of a lot of hard working Americans, and we are spending it
the way we see fit, on programs that we think are good, and I think
this committee has worked very hard to analyze these programs and come
up with what they think are some difficult decisions, but nonetheless
are the appropriate decisions that need to be made in order to get us
toward a balanced budget.
We cannot keep spending money over and over again because we think it
is the right thing to do. We have to have some real good hard objective
measures. We have to make the difficult decisions because if we do not,
let us face it, there will be no money for anything. We will be
bankrupt.
That is what has propelled us, the freshmen Republicans, into this
body and led to the Republican majority this year, and why we are
seriously changing the spending priorities of our Nation. The public
knows that if we do not make a change there will be no money for
anybody, and I think of Dave Exley, the painter, every time I am asked
to vote on a spending decision, and, yes, the decisions are hard, but
we are ready to make the hard decisions, and I think this bill is a
good bill, it is a tough bill, it makes some tough decisions.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the
gentleman knows, I am for a balanced budget, I am trying to make some
of these tough choices to balance the budget for our children's sake
and future generations. The gentleman is from a great part of the
United States where the climate is between 70 and 95 degrees all year.
I am from South Bend, IN, where the weather can be 50 degrees below
zero.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, Dave Exley takes care of that stirring stick
so his paint will be well mixed, and it will give a good coat. How much
more, Mr. Chairman, should we take care of our little children so that
when they grow they can paint America successful, they can paint
America with more opportunity?
Now, I see the Chairman of our committee standing up here, or sitting
here, he is going to stand pretty soon, and he is going to show that
little red chart over there. And he is going to go bankrupt as a
businessman if he uses that chart, because that chart relates to this
chart. How many children are we serving in America that we promised in
1965 to serve under Lyndon Johnson, concurred in by Richard Nixon,
followed on by President Ford and endorsed by President Carter, and
then said to be by Ronald Reagan one of the programs that works, and
what did we do? We retreated. We retreated, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's little red chart over there is serving
less children. Less children in America who are eligible for Head Start
are being served today, Mr. Chairman, and that red chart will not
change those statistics, and as that happens, we are losing children in
America, and we cannot afford to do that.
This Head Start budget that you talk about drops 48,000 children
through the cracks. This budget alone, 48,000 children. I do not know
whether your painter thinks that is a good investment. He cares about
that stirring stick because it saves him a nickel a day, and he is
smart. Would that every American would do that, America would be a more
successful Nation. But would that every Member of this Congress, ladies
and gentlemen, would understand that those little children, 3 and 4
years of age are America's stirring sticks. They are America's future.
They will paint America as a successful, competitive community. They
will paint America the kind of land of opportunity of which your
Speaker speaks. but opportunity does not just happen for some kids, for
any children.
The best solution, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, is two loving,
caring nurturing parents. Would that every child had that. And the
economic opportunities that all of us can provide our children, God
bless them as God has blessed us. But ladies and gentlemen, cutting
Head Start makes no economic sense. It makes no common sense, and it
makes no human sense.
That is why we ought to reject this bill, because notwithstanding the
Chairman's little red chart, we are serving less children who are
eligible to be helped and who America has promised to help in Head
Start. Let us not have a false start once again. Let us reject this
bill. Let us save those little stirring sticks that we call our
children, our future.
[[Page H 8320]]
Mr. Chairman, this is a defining moment for this Congress. With this
bill we declare our priorities as a nation.
Should we invest our money in our children and in our future as a
nation, or give the money in a tax break to the wealthiest Americans?
The cut to Head Start is only one example of the misguided choices
Republicans have made in this bill.
There is a good reason why Head Start is America's best loved program
for children. Head Start isn't perfect. But it is a place where
children get the education, nutrition, health checkups, and skills they
need to learn and succeed in school.
In 1993 and 1994, we reached a high point of serving 40 percent of
eligible Head Start kids. At the high point, 6 out of every 10 needy
preschoolers couldn't go to Head Start because we didn't have the room.
Despite these shortages, the Republican bill cuts Head Start by
50,000 children in 1996--allowing us to serve only 36 percent of
eligible children, the same percentage served in 1991.
Under this bill, 50,000 fewer children will go to Head Start in 1996
than could in 1995.
That's 50,000 children who are more likely to be high school
dropouts, juvenile delinquents, or teenage parents.
Fifty thousand children who are more likely to be on welfare--taking
from society rather than contributing to it.
Head Start helps children like Guy, who began Head Start in southern
Maryland unable to learn and far behind his peers.
Guy's mother and stepfather were overwhelmed and unable to help their
son.
That's when Head Start sprang into action. Guy's mom was given
medical cards so Guy and his sister could go to the doctor for
immunizations and to the dentist for checkups.
Head Start got Guy an appointment at Children's Hospital, where his
learning disability was diagnosed and addressed.
Head Start found parenting classes for Guy's parents to help them
help Guy.
As Guy's behavior improved, his mom was able to go back to school at
Charles County Community College.
Because Guy was in Head Start, his mom could attend school 5 days a
week, and graduated from the secretarial program. She is now working
for a small business and supporting her family.
In September, Guy will start kindergarten. Thanks to Head Start, he
is doing well and is ready to learn.
In 1990, Frank Doyle, the CEO of General Electric called on Congress
to fully fund Head Start. He spoke on behalf of TRW, Goodyear, Eli
Lilly, AT&T, Mobil, and many other businesses who know that getting
children ready to learn is the key to future economic success.
But this bill goes in the other direction. This bill isn't a Head
Start--it's a false start. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
announcement by the chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would again remind Members that they are to
address the Chair and only the Chair in their remarks from the floor.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank my good friend from Illinois for yielding
time to me, and I will try to be brief.
Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments: First of all, about the gentleman
that preceded me, I want to say how much I appreciated his performance.
It was a preformance. The gentleman always makes a magnificent speech
and gives a great performance. Sometimes he is a little short on the
facts, as this time, but it was a good performance.
That being said, yesterday the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking
minority member of the committee, and I had a dialog back and forth,
and we discussed one of us winning versus the other, and I said at the
time I hoped I won on this bill.
I want to rephrase that. Because I had an opportunity to reflect on
my comment. I do not know whether he will win or whether I will win,
but I hope that America wins, and I hope that America's children win,
and I think they will with this bill, contrary to the statements of the
gentleman from Maryland, who went before me. Because we are beginning
to understand that simply by sitting down and writing a check on a bank
account where somebody else puts the money in is not the answer to our
problems. It is certainly not the answer to educating and nourishing
the youngsters of America.
The fact is that I do have a red chart, and what it illustrates quite
clearly is that in 1989 the Head Start funding was $1.2 billion. It
rose in 1990 to $1.5 billion and went on up, up, up, until now, just a
few short years later, 1995, it is virtually three times the size that
it was in 1989. As Everett Dirksen said, a billion dollars here and a
billion dollars there, and pretty soon you are talking about real
money; $3.5 billion is what we will spend this year on just the Head
Start Program.
Now, as we know from additional debate on this floor in the last few
days, this is just one program. There are 240 separate education
programs for the youngsters of America run by the Federal Government,
spread over some 11 departments, 15 agencies, and other offices.
{time} 1115
This is only one of those programs currently funded at $3.5 billion.
To hear the hue and cry of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and
other people who have said, oh, my goodness, the heartless, heartless
majority in Congress today, the Republicans, have cut the program. We
have cut it all the way back by $3.4 billion.
Now, I have to question the premise the world is coming apart and our
children are going to grow up illiterate because of this cut. It is
simply not so or, as the song says, ``It ain't necessarily so.'' In
fact, there is some great question, some significant doubt as to
whether or not this program works at all.
Mr. Edward Zeigler, the Yale professor who founded Head Start, the
man that started the program, is quoted in the Washington Post of
February 19, 1993, ``Until the program has reached a certain minimum
level of quality they should not put one more kid in it''.
That was 1993. And in 1993 we spent $2.7 billion.
In 1996, we propose to spend $3.4 billion.
Now, if the gentleman really seriously was concerned about the
children of America he would remember that the children in Head Start
are not the only children in America. All of the children of America,
roughly 100 million, are the future of America, and their prosperity,
their education, their nourishment is important to the future of
America. The more we take money out of the pockets of the parents who
are trying to raise and educate them, the more we take that money away
from them, send it to the bureaucrats in Washington, put it in a
program that does not work, the more we stifle the opportunity for
those children to become the real future of America.
This cut is meaningless, and for these people to say the world is
coming to an end when all we are doing is trimming back a measly 2.9
percent, $.1 billion out of $3.5 billion, then it seems to me this is
much ado about nothing. We are speaking about how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin.
Many of my colleagues do not care about rolling back the cost of
Government. They do not care about getting the budget under control.
What they say is, in effect, we will not balance the budget. We will
not be concerned about the escalating interest on the
debt. We will not be concerned with the fact that interest alone will
exceed the cost of the national defense of this country within 2 years.
We will not be concerned with the fact that nearly $20,000 is piled on
every man, woman, and child in America to pay off the debt. We will
just wear blinders and keep spending money and writing checks because,
after all, the good old American taxpayers will pay the bill.
It is time to say no. It is time to make a trim. It is time to make
the cuts. It is time to pass this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, listening to all this, I would think I was born in
Jamaica where the motto is ``No problem, No problem.''
You are taking 150,000 student loans away from kids under the Perkins
Loan Program. You are cutting drug-free schools by 50 percent. You are
eliminating 1 million kids out of chapter 1. You are cutting 55,000
kids out of Head Start.
Eight hundred people died in this country 2 weeks ago and you are
saying, no problem, we are going to eliminate the program for them.
[[Page H 8321]]
You are cutting MediGap counseling so seniors do not get chiseled by
insurance companies on phony MediGap policies. You are cutting that
promise to help them by 50 percent. Yet you have got guts enough to
talk about spending. Before your President Ronald Reagan took over and
you swallowed his line of malarkey, we never had a deficit larger than
$65 billion.
We followed your advice, passed those budgets, deficits are now over
$200 billion. Thanks a lot for your fiscal discipline. Ha, ha, ha.
You are talking about spending, cutting spending. You are going to
keep the F-22. You are going to keep the B-2.
Just one of those B-2 bombers--and you are buying a heck of a lot
more than the Pentagon wants--just one of them will fund the tuition
for every student at the University of Wisconsin for the next 12 years.
Where in God's name are your priorities?
Then you talk about Head Start. That chart talks about the dollars.
As Members know, we have had a bipartisan recognition that Head Start
needed a quality improvement. We need to improve the quality of
teachers. We need to improve the quality of services. And so that is
where the money has gone, to try to improve quality.
As a result, under your budget, the number of kids who are going to
be enrolled in Head Start next year is going to drop from 752,000 to
704,000. Maybe you do not care about those kids who are going to be
dropped off the program. We do. Forget your phoney numbers game. Look
at the people behind those numbers.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] an eminent member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to say is
that I am a proud supporter of Head Start and proud to support the 190-
percent increase in this program in the last 5 years. The program is
working very well in many parts of this country, and the sourpuss look
on the faces of our opponents this morning is because we are telling
the truth, we are exposing the hypocrisy of those who are trying to say
that we are not concerned about this program and are not interested in
preserving it.
I would like to turn attention now to another aspect of this portion
of the bill. That is rural health. I am also most proud of the overall
funding for rural health care.
According to the National Rural Health Association, it would like to
have $1.4 billion worth of funding in this bill. With the leadership of
our chairman and the hard work by the Rural Health Care Coalition this
bill has $1.33 billion or 95 percent of that request. We got 95 percent
of what we wanted. In anyone's book that is a tremendous success rate.
In this budgetary time, I consider that a big success. However, some
think this is not enough. I do. Of the 24 programs deemed important to
rural health care, we increased the most vital components, community
and migrant health care centers, and health care for the homeless
cluster.
We provide last year's funding levels minus the rescission bill, for
12 other line items, including health service corps, rural health
outreach grants, family medicine, physicians assistants, allied health,
area health education centers, health education training centers, and
many of the nursing programs that are so vital to rural areas that have
no health care provider whatsoever.
My colleagues, we have worked very hard in subcommittees to secure
adequate funding for rural health care. The Rural Health Care Coalition
should be able to hold its head high and declare a job well done.
While I understand that an amendment will be offered to increase
funding even more, regardless of the outcome of the Gunderson-Poshard
amendment, I hope all members that support rural health care will
support this bill in the end. This bill is a good bill for rural
America in helping to meet their needs and not penalizing them for
living in the heartland of this great country.
I call attention to all Members who represent rural areas in America;
this is a good bill for rural health care. Please vote for the bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about who is for
balancing the budget and who is not for balancing the budget.
Many of us Democrats are going to make the right choices and vote to
cut the B-2 bomber and not to kick children out of the Head Start
Program.
Now, let us talk about Head Start for a minute. Here is a program
that President Reagan talked about how much money do we put in to
increase funding on Head Start. President Bush talked about how much
money do we put in here to increase our education for low-income
children. Now in this Congress we have Republicans talking about how
many children are we going to kick out of the program.
Here is the chart. We currently have 752,000 children enrolled. After
this bill passes, and I hope it does not, 48,000 children are going to
be kicked out of this program.
Now, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
[Mr. Livingston] quotes the Washington Post and Washington charts. How
does this program work in Michigan City, IN? We have 80 children
waiting to get into this program in Michigan City, IN. We have a
waiting list of eligible children. Yet you are going to tell us who to
kick off.
Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you go back to Michigan
City, IN, and you point out who gets kicked out of this program.
Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you decide how many, 5,
10, 12 children, in your programs do not get to enroll and get kicked
out of maybe the most successful Government program ever put together.
We have got to make some tough decisions around here on our spending
priorities.
The chairman of the committee said it does not make any difference
how many angels dance on the pin of a needle. There are our angels
dancing right there. Do not kick those children off of Head Start.
Defeat this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the chairman how much
time is remaining on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 18 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 21 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is really a very, very hard
message to listen to the Republican arguments for cutting Head Start.
It is one of the few programs, Federal programs, which has succeeded
over the years. But now to cut it is a dangerous thing, because what we
are doing on one hand is giving a big tax cut to the rich and we are
cutting off at the pass these poor children who need Head Start.
It has been shown by a bipartisan commission that Head Start does
improve the lives of these children. It improves the educational
outlook of these children. So you are going to cut funding for the
little ones who cannot speak for themselves, these little ones, 3- and
4-year-old preschool children and not open up to even younger.
If you are going to restore the kinds of things in America that we
need to restore, you should be restoring the lives of these young
children. Study after study has shown that it works and it works well.
Since 1965, nearly 14 million children have participated in the
program. So why are they saying it should be cut? To pay for the tax
cuts for the rich. It currently serves fewer than half the poor
children who are eligible. You have heard the arguments. It is well
documented that this program worked. So then Head Start helps children
in both urban and rural areas.
{time} 1130
Does it work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories.
Mr. Chairman, I remember Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very
poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still
remembers her Head Start teacher that led
[[Page H 8322]]
her on to grade school with more success. She was on the Dean's List at
Fordham. She was president of the Law Association, and today she is a
law clerk for the U.S. State district judge in Miami.
Mr. Chairman, it is a great Federal program, one of the few where we
can see documented success. We must continue to help this Nation's
children, and we cannot use what we call fiscal conservatism only for
the poor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this wrong-headed bill.
This bill is nothing more than an attack on little children. Somewhere
along the line the Republican leadership seemed to forget a few basic
facts: They forgot that children are our future, and they forgot that
we need to invest in our children.
Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, the Republican majority was
falling all over itself to give a big tax cut to rich people.
But today, this bills cuts funding for Head Start--cuts funding for
little 3- and 4-year-old pre-school children who live in America's
poorest families.
Mr. Chairman, I tried to restore Head Start funding in the House
Budget Committee, and I was told that ``everybody has to suffer a
little pain.'' This bill puts the hurt of budget cuts on little
children. I say, shame on you.
The American people support Head Start--for good reason.
Study after study, evaluation after evaluation has shown that Head
Start works and works well. Head Start gets toddlers ready for school.
Children who participate in Head Start enter school better prepared to
learn, with improved health and with better self-esteem. According to
the Bipartisan Advisory Committee on Head Start quality and expansion,
``The evidence is clear that Head Start produces immediate gains for
children and families.''
Head Start gives the American taxpayer good value for the dollar:
Grantees have to contribute 20 percent of the cost of the program.
Since 1965, nearly 14 million children, most of them 3- and 4-year-
olds, have participated in the program. By law, virtually all of them
are from families with incomes below the poverty level.
The Republicans say Head Start should be cut. Why? To pay for tax
cuts for the rich? Head Start currently serves fewer than half the poor
children who are eligible. If anything, we should increase funding for
this program.
President Clinton wanted to increase Head Start by $537 million. This
bill cuts Head Start by $137 million. I'm surprised this bill doesn't
change the name from ``Head Start'' to ``Fall Behind.''
Mr. Chairman, Head Start helps children in urban areas and rural
areas, it helps the truly needy and poor; and it helps the tiniest and
most vulnerable in our society.
Does Head Start work? You bet. There are thousands of success
stories--like Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family
and started out in Head Start at the age of 4.
She still remembers her teacher, Ms. Whitelow. The boost that Winnie
Jordan got in Head Start helped her succeed in grade school, and
success led to success.
She was a dean's list student at Florida State University; she was
president of the Black Law Students Association at the University of
Miami Law School. And today, she is law clerk for U.S. District Judge
Wilkie Ferguson, Jr.
Head Start is a great Federal program. It is what the Federal
Government should be doing to help this Nation's children and to help
the most vulnerable in our society to learn and to succeed.
This bill has many terrible provisions. But, in my view, it should be
defeated soundly because it ignores the needs of our children.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my very grave concerns about the more
than $21 million in cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program. These cuts
are consistent with the mean-spirited attacks that the Republicans are
making on elderly Americans. Medicare, Medicaid, Meals on Wheels,
Senior Volunteers, the GOP's attacks on the elderly continue.
The Senior Volunteer Program's small budget is perhaps one of the
best investments in all of the Federal budget. For every dollar we
spend coordinating this program we get back many many more dollars
worth of services in return.
These harmful cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program will have a
devastating affect on the 23,000 foster grandparents who last year
cared for more than 80,000 disabled kids; the 12,000 senior companions
who, last year, helped 36,000 frail elderly people to continue to live
in their own homes; and the more than 400,000 seniors who participated
in volunteer programs last year.
These mean-spirited cuts aren't necessary to balance the budget, and
they won't. What they will do is make it harder for a lot of older
Americans to do a lot of good in our communities.
Shame on the Republicans for picking on senior citizens and
volunteers. Shame on the GOP for robbing the elderly of opportunities
to live meaningful and committed lives just to finance huge tax breaks
for the wealthy. Shame on them for producing this very bad bill. Let's
defeat this bill and give senior volunteers a chance.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this bill is loaded with legislative
riders that have no place in an appropriations bill, and I hope further
changes will be made today.
But first, I want to acknowledge Chairman Porter for his efforts. He
was given an allocation that was significantly lower than the fiscal
year 1995 allocation, and he did his best to craft an acceptable bill.
He also opposed the many riders attached in the full committee. I am
strongly supportive of the 6-percent increase in funding for the
National Institutes of Health, the increased funding for breast cancer
research, and breast and cervical cancer screening, increased funding
for the Ryan White CARE Act, the funding for the Violence Against Women
Act programs in the bill, and the preservation of the DOD AIDS research
program.
Unfortunately, the full committee attached a number of legislative
riders in the full committee. I will be offering an amendment later
today with Congresswoman Lowey and Congressman Kolbe to strike the
Istook language in the bill allowing States to decide whether to fund
Medicaid abortions in the cases of rape and incest. This is not an
issue about States' rights. States can choose to participate in the
Medicaid Program; however, once that choice is made, they are required
to comply with all Federal statutory and regulatory requirements,
including funding abortions in the cases of rape and incest. Every
Federal court that has considered this issue has held that State
Medicaid plans must cover all abortions for which Federal funds are
provided by the Hyde amendment.
Abortions as a result of rape and incest are rare--and they are
tragic. The vast majority of Americans support Medicaid funding for
abortions that are the result of these violent, brutal crimes against
women. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe
amendment.
Another amendment added in committee makes an unprecedented intrusion
into the development of curriculum requirements and the accreditation
process for medical schools. An amendment will be offered by
Congressman Ganske and Congresswoman Johnson to strike this language in
the bill, and I will be speaking in favor of their effort as well.
There is also troubling language in the bill that restricts the
enforcement of title IX in college athletics even before a fall report
is submitted. Congresswoman Mink will be offering an amendment to
strike this language, and I urge support for her amendment.
Several additional amendments attempt to legislate on this bill, and
I am opposed to these efforts as well. The entire appropriations
process has been circumvented in the last several bills, and I am
outraged at the efforts to bypass the appropriate, deliberative
legislative process in this House.
I urge my colleagues to vote for amendments to remove the riders
before they consider final passage.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of Head Start.
How dare the gentleman from Louisiana, who has never been to a Head
Start site, who has probably never talked to a Head Start parent, how
dare he attack Head Start on the floor of Congress?
I was an employee in the Head Start Program. I worked first as a
teacher's aide. Because of Head Start, I returned to college. I
graduated. I became supervisor of the Parent Involvement and Volunteer
Service.
Mr. Chairman, Head Start is not a baby-sitting program. It is an
early childhood development program. It is a program for children of
working parents and poor parents. Yes, rich parents can buy early
childhood experiences for their children. Working parents do not have
the money to do it.
[[Page H 8323]]
Head Start provides a little bit of an opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, we have children who have learning disabilities that
never would have been discovered had it not been for Head Start. They
would have sat in school, not been able to learn, and been relegated to
being a dropout.
Mr. Chairman, we had children who never owned a book.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman from California, nobody
is attacking the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program is being
reduced by about 3 percent for a very good reason. The reduction is
made only because in the testimony before our subcommittee, and before
the authorizing committee, it is very, very clear that there is money
that is being misspent in the program and not providing the kids with
the services that the program is designed to provide.
We are all fans of the Head Start Program. We are strong supporters
of the Head Start Program, but we are not for wasting Government money,
taxpayer money, on programs that do not work for the kids. That is the
only reason that any cut is made in the program. We are supporters of
Head Start.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, there has been a recent
proposal for a federally funded research study on the cost
effectiveness of applying case management services to substance abuse
treatment.
The research would study, in a practical and applied manner, the use
of care management techniques to reduce the cost of treatment and
incidents of relapse for those patients suffering from addictive
diseases.
Case management techniques have proven to be cost effective in
treating other chronic diseases and since substance abuse is a
progressive, chronic, and potentially fatal disease, these techniques
should be equally successful in treating substance abuse.
Mr. Chairman, I am both pleased and appreciative that the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has agreed to support this effort, which
would address a critical need in this country, and I thank the
gentleman for the opportunity to raise this issue and would invite the
gentleman's comment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the
gentleman from Missouri for his thoughtful points on an issue we both
agree on. Addiction is a chronic disease that affects 10 percent of
American adults and 3 percent of adolescents.
The economic costs associated with alcohol and other drug problems
are truly staggering; over $165 billion in 1990 alone. This research
study would help to advance both the private and public sectors'
understanding of what mix of services is necessary in order to cost
effectively treat substance abuse.
Mr. Chairman, substance abuse is not a disease that we can continue
to take lightly if we are ever to control the spiraling health care
costs associated with it. I look forward to working with the gentleman
from Missouri further to address this issue.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, in the history of this Chamber there have
undoubtedly been some unbelievably hypocritical statements made from
this well, but I do not think there are any more hypocritical
statements ever made than those coming to the microphone professing to
care about children, while supporting a bill that makes the mean-
spirited, targeted cuts at programs essential for kids that this
budget, this appropriations bill represents.
Take for example the Healthy Start Program a program geared at
reducing infant mortality. This country of ours ranks 20th in the world
for infant mortality, and in different places in the country, places
like the Native American reservations in North Dakota, we even rank
behind the countries of Bulgaria, Cuba, and Jamaica, for God's sake,
with infant mortality.
Mr. Chairman, we have reduced infant mortality with Healthy Start by
programs that have allowed little fellows like E.J. Chantell, to
survive when he otherwise would not have made it. He came into this
world with water on his brain and serious stomach disorders, but with
Healthy Start, and his fighting spirit, E.J. is alive. He is going to
make it.
In fact we have taken 4 percent off of our infant mortality rates in
the reservations in just 4 years. Why in the world would someone come
to a mike professing to care about kids, while arguing for a program
that cuts Healthy Start by 50 percent? Tomorrow's E.J. might die
because of this cut, and no more hypocritical statement would be made
to say that you are for kids while you take away the very programs that
let them live.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Eshoo].
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, in my view, there is a gap in the debate we
are engaged in. The mantra is that we must cut, cut drastically for the
long term, for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, there is a new generation, Congress, and they are alive
today. They are our young; they are our kids. They have a right to hope
and fulfill their dreams for themselves. They are the little ones of
America today. Today, Mr. Chairman.
We need to balance our budget, but the Republican budget priorities,
tax breaks for the most fortunate of our country, who are not even
asking for them, by the way, coupled with increased defense spending on
the one hand and massive cuts in critical health and education programs
on the other, shows just how little this majority really cares about
the children of today.
Healthy Start is a small program with a big payoff. It began 4 years
ago as a demonstration project, providing funds to 15 communities with
the highest rates of infant mortality in the country.
Every industrial society measures itself by infant mortality rates.
It operates on the premise that we should plant a seed, which is
nurtured by local communities, with input from health care providers,
so that we can solve this terrible problem.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sad commentary on the priorities of
this Congress, and this country, to increase defense spending, provide
corporate subsidies that total over $100 billion, and insist on
hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts while denying our tiniest
citizens a chance at a healthy start. It is wrong-headed, it is wrong
for the future of our Nation, and I think that it is shameful that the
Congress would be doing this.
{time} 1145
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out, first of all, in response to the
previous speaker's comments, that, of course, we are talking about an
appropriations bill here that does not in any way affect the Tax Code
or tax policy and certainly does not grant any kind of tax breaks to
American citizens or businesses.
Mr. Chairman, proceeding under my own time now, I would like to
direct the attention of our Democratic colleagues to one section of the
bill. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, point out that this particular
appropriation bill, despite the very real budgetary constraints that we
have been discussing here on the House floor this morning, provides
level funding for three of the titles of the Ryan White AIDS Care Act,
and an additional $23 million increase over 1995 for title I of the
Ryan White Care Act, which provides assistance to American citizens.
This increased funding for title I, which I fought for in both the
subcommittee and full committee markup of the bill, is to address the
funding pressures resulting from additional cities becoming eligible to
join the program in 1996. This is the so-called hold-harmless funding
that is intended to address the growing AIDS epidemic in our major
metropolitan centers in America.
At least 7, and perhaps as many as 10, new cities will be eligible
for this funding in 1996. Many of those cities, in fact, are located in
California, where we have borne the brunt of the AIDS epidemic, and
again this bill is intended to provide funding for those
[[Page H 8324]]
communities that are struggling to cope with the AIDS crisis.
I think we are all aware and, again we have attempted to reflect this
in the priorities set out in the bill, that the impact of the HIV
epidemic continues to grow in America, both in the numbers of people
infected as well as the geographic areas of the country that are
impacted. The people affected are often medically underserved, with
substantial access problems to quality health care. Demographic changes
in the epidemic, for example, the increasing proportions of women,
youth, and minorities contracting the HIV virus, require changes in our
planning and in our thinking. They also require changes in the
organization and delivery of care in health services.
It is estimated that 800,000 to 1.2 million individuals have HIV in
the United States. Large numbers of people are still not receiving
care. Others receive insufficient or inappropriate care or are being
served in inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate or
high-cost settings.
The committee has maintained funding for Ryan White programs in
recognition of the extent of unmet need in serving this population. We
have increased funding again for those larger metropolitan areas where
the HIV epidemic continues to grow.
I want to salute my colleagues on the subcommittee and the full
committee for finding the funds to increase the Ryan White AIDS funding
overall, again within the very difficult fiscal constraints of this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the cuts in the Republican Labor-
HHS-Education bill, that targets the national senior service corps'
volunteer program, is a display of blatant arrogance toward the value
and experience of our country's older Americans.
As we place emphasis in ensuring that all people become productive
and contributing members of our society, we must not forget those who
have already contributed greatly to our Nation and will continue to do
so, if we do not deny them the opportunity.
Recent figures indicate that there are 13,000 senior volunteers and
the numbers are growing.
The retired and senior volunteer program helps hospitals nurture and
care for children afflicted with a serious illness.
In the foster grandparent program, the forgotten child benefits from
the guidance and love of a senior.
The senior companion program provides frail adults with assistance in
daily activities helping them remain independent and in their
communities.
These programs allow seniors to play a role where their expertise,
time, and attention fill many voids that the rest of our society
neglects.
It is a disgrace that Republicans will help destroy the spirit of
senior volunteerism with these cuts.
Instead of praising senior volunteers as a model of citizenship,
Republicans are dismissing their contributions and treating them as if
they have nothing to offer.
Republicans are wrong.
Seniors most certainly have much to offer.
Those of us who highly value the worthwhile contributions of our
seniors have yet another reason to vote against the Labor-HHS-Education
bill.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I am rising in support of an amendment that will be offered later in
the debate to restore approximately $9 million for rural health care
research.
As a past cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and
that involves about 140 Members who are obviously very much interested
in the rural health care delivery system, we have really worked very
hard to strengthen and preserve the rural health care research. Our
coalition was organized back in 1987, and we have been able to
establish a Federal office of rural health policy. We have worked very
hard to try to eliminate the urban-rural Medicare reimbursement
differential with State offices of rural health and the rural health
transition grant program.
I know that we have very severe budget responsibilities, Mr.
Chairman. However, let me point out that these are just a few of the
letters I have from my small community hospitals in my 66 countries out
on the prairie, pointing out the value of the $9 million, and note I
said ``million,'' not ``billion,'' in regard to research. I just cannot
stress how important it is that we maintain a presence for rural health
at the Federal level.
We have been working for years to overcome our physical and our age
and our geographical barriers to health care. Let us not put up one
more barrier by removing the rural health research component.
So, when the amendment is introduced as of later this afternoon, I
certainly urge all Members to support it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Brown].
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, behind me are pictures of three
of my constituents who are participants in senior volunteer programs in
Orlando, FL. The first, largest, and best in the State of Florida.
These successful programs, such as the Foster-Grandparents and RSVP
programs, will be cut by $21 million in this shameful bill. Not only do
these programs provide opportunities to older people of all backgrounds
and income levels to contribute to our communities, they also allow
seniors to make a difference in the lives of so many of our children by
providing the structure and guidance that would otherwise be missing
from these children's lives. This prevention program is often the only
thing preventing these kids from a life of crime.
Mr. Chairman, these programs work. It is disgraceful and downright
shameful to cut these programs which provide so much to our
communities, to be cut.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Labor-HHS appropriations
bill. Shame, shame, shame.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, most of my colleagues would think that
Green Thumb would be a garden club or an environmental group. But if
they know someone whose life has been changed through Green Thumb, they
know that it is a unique employment training program for low-income
seniors.
In fact, this chart shows the typical participant. There is a Green
Thumb program in my hometown of Petaluma, CA, and one woman in my
county whose life has been changed by Green Thumb is Lynn Gibbs. Lynn
Gibbs is a 62-year-old graduate. A few years back, Lynn lost her
successful business and was left living on an income below the poverty
level. Thanks to Green Thumb and the training and job placement
assistance program, Lynn is now working at a local boys' and girls'
club.
I will bet that almost every one of my colleagues knows someone who
has worked hard, played by the rules, but who found they needed a
helping hand in their older years.
Last year, Green Thumb placed more than 19,000 seniors in jobs and
community service projects.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow on with
the comments by my friend, the gentlewoman from California, on the
Green Thumb program.
This is a senior community service employment program. It is a major,
critical part of the Older Americans Act that we have supported here
for many years. This program is very critical to the quality of life
for our senior citizens.
We talked about children. They are important. We want to take care of
our children. They are our future. But we cannot forget our seniors.
This is a means-tested program. This is people over 55 with incomes
lower than 125 percent of the poverty level. We have got to take care
of these people because it is quality of life. It allows them to
participate in our communities.
[[Page H 8325]]
This budget that we are setting in front of us, this appropriations
bill, cuts this program by $60 million under what was budgeted, $42
million over what was in last year's.
As a result of this bill, 14,000 seniors will lose their jobs. Ladies
and gentlemen, we owe it to our children to protect their future. We
owe it to our seniors for their efforts for paying them back for the
sacrifices they have made in our behalf.
Vote against this appropriations bill.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bonilla], my colleague on the subcommittee.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk for just a minute
about the hypocrisy of those who are standing up to oppose our bill
this morning.
We have fully funded the TRIO program, for example. We have fully
funded the community and migrant health care center program. We are
supporting the 190 percent increase over 5 years of the Head Start
Program. We are increasing funding for the Ryan White Program. We are
increasing funding for the National Institute of Health.
Anyone who supports these programs on the other side of the aisle
ought to stand up proudly and say these are good programs, that we need
to support the increased funding for, and vote for this bill.
They have taken a handful of items out of over 400 items that this
bill addresses, taken a handful and turned it into a huge propaganda
machine to try to act like we do not care about TRIO, we do not care
about community and migrant health care centers or Head Start or Ryan
White or the National Institutes of Health.
So let us stop this hypocrisy that we are hearing on the floor today
of those who say that we are not interested in preserving and
supporting and increasing funding for these programs.
What do you want us to do, take money out of TRIO to fund an increase
for OSHA? Do you want us to take money out of community and migrant
health care centers to give it to the Labor Department, to attorneys at
the Labor Department? Do you want us to cut funding for Head Start to
give it to phony, duplicative job training programs? Do you want us to
cut Ryan White money to support Goals 2000? Do you want us to cut the
National Institutes of Health to support some of these other
boondoggles in the program?
If not, stand up and vote for the bill and stop being hypocritical.
The former chairman of this committee, Mr. Natcher, who I worked very
closely with, and for whom we all had tremendous respect, always said,
``If I had my way, we'd double everything in this bill.'' He did not
have the money to do it either. We do not have it either. We are doing
the best we can.
I encourage all of my friends on the other side of the aisle to stand
up for these good programs that we are trying to support and vote for
the bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute.
The fact remains you are cutting $9.5 billion out of education,
health and job programs. It is true that a few programs managed to
escape your ax. Big deal. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
{time} 1200
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez].
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, this bill is cutting back on all the
programs that benefit families. I am not sure the family values new
majority understand the dire consequences of their actions. One of the
most onerous cutbacks is on a program that was designed to ensure that
seniors receive adequate nutrition. Enabling them to live independently
and not be an economic burden on their families or society.
The Senior Nutrition Program is the major reason that seniors can
live independently in the community rather than in $34,000 per year
nursing facilities. Another program that is being eliminated is the
Ombudsman Program which protects vulnerable seniors in nursing homes.
It has been shown that most nursing home operators are caring
professionals who provide significant support to frail elderly
patients.
But ``20/20'' recently graphically demonstrated instances of real
physical abuse of elderly patients in nursing homes.
Without the independent Ombudsman Programs, those abuses will
continue and will, I believe, grow in number and in severity.
In addition, the bill proposes slashing the budget of the three
senior volunteer programs--Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and
the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program [RSVP].
These programs were developed at the grass-roots level, tried in many
places and then presented to the Federal Government as an idea whose
time had come.
Since these programs were first funded, they have shown time and
again that the small investment by the Federal Government reaps
significant rewards, such as the cooperative agreement between the
Senior Companion Program and the Visiting Nurses Association. By
providing a visiting nurse to visit only 1 day a week, in support of
the daily visit by the Senior Companion, the patient is ensured that he
or she can live independently.
I remember a volunteer from my own district who organized his fellow
retirees into a community street patrol. They provide mature eyes and
ears for the public safety service and allow police officers to respond
quickly and provide greater community safety.
These stories are not unique to the 31st District of California, they
are repeated in every congressional district.
I urge Members to oppose these cuts, vote ``no'' on this bill, and
protect the economic benefits of these programs.
Send a message that this is truly a family friendly Congress--not one
that is ready to destroy the elderly, the children, and the family.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas wanted to know what he would
have us to do on this side. We would have you to balance your priority.
The gentleman from Texas, we will say, we will have you to have a sense
of compassion. We also would have you to recognize that is not
ineffective, nonessential to make sure that senior citizens have heat
in the winter and have air-conditioning in the summer.
It is not ineffective, no longer needed, that those almost 500 people
who died in Chicago, the majority of them senior citizens, the majority
of them low-income, had no air-conditioning. That was life and death.
So we are talking about priorities.
This bill, more than any other bill, makes the distinction between
the policies of the minority and the cruel extreme policies of the
majority. You will go to a balanced budget at the cost of anything,
regardless of whether people live or die.
You raise the issue about children, and yet you depress the
opportunity for them to learn, to live, and to be healthy. You claim
that you are about family values and yet you deny the opportunity, even
want to deny the opportunity of family planning. This is, indeed, lack
of consistency and borders on hypocrisy.
So what we would have you to do is to understand there are
consequences to your actions. You cannot ignore the pain and distress
that you cause millions of people if you pursue this policy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unthinkable
bill.
Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly demonstrates the differences between
the policies of the minority and the extreme policies of the majority.
Over the past several days, cuts have been made in programs which
have benefited Americans for many, many years. But now we are debating
the most unconscionable cut of all--elimination of a program which
serves thousands of senior citizens across America.
Next week, as we begin the August recess of the House, we will come
face to face with our constituents.
As much as I enjoy visiting in my congressional district, I am not
looking forward to having to explain why there is less money for low-
income housing programs: Why there is less money to combat
homelessness; why there is less money for construction of VA
facilities; why there will be no more drug elimination
[[Page H 8326]]
grants; why there is no summer youth employment program; and why there
is no Goals 2000 Education Program.
But just how do you explain to people that the House of
Representatives has eliminated a program so critical to the health and
well-being of so many people. LIHEAP is a program which provides
assistance to thousands of senior citizens across our Nation to help
them pay for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer.
This is certainly an appropriate time for us to vote on this program.
Think about it. Weather people have been telling us that this past
July has hosted a record number of days over 90 degrees. And the
hardest hit--those most affected by the heat--are our senior citizens.
How can we in good conscience tell those thousands of senior citizens
that they will just have to ``make do.''
``Stay cool the best way you can.''
Tell that to the families of the more than 500 people in Chicago who
died as a result of the heat. And most of these people were senior
citizens.
They were someone's parents--someone's grandparents. That's an
unsettling thought.
I wonder just how well we would do if the air-conditioning in this
Chamber--and our offices--was cut off for just 1 day during this
sweltering heat.
Where is our compassion?
I cannot--in good conscience--vote to eliminate this program which
serves so many. I ask for your compassion as well.
Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2127.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this bill is such a crime
against senior citizens, there should be an assault weapons ban
included to protect them.
It says it will cut your Social Security and cost-of-living increase;
we will ask you to pay $5,000 more in out-of-pocket expenses for
Medicare, take away your fuel assistance program, take food out of your
mouths, take away protections to protect seniors against elder abuse,
and restrict your jobs. It forces seniors to choose between heating,
eating, lifesaving medicines, providing for fuel assistance, and
cooling bills. Make no mistake about it. This bill makes tough choices
even tougher.
What are the Republicans thinking about when they end the fuel
assistance? This heat wave has already killed over 700 Americans, most
of them senior citizens, and many, many more will die as the actions
are taken on this bill today.
There are 12 million people that count on the Congregate Meals and
the Meals on Wheels program; 150,000 seniors will be cut off from their
only source of daily food. It abolishes the program that protects our
seniors from fraud and nursing home abuses and, finally, it restricts
opportunities for older workers who still want to work.
Have the Republicans gone to Washington and forgotten about their
parents and grandparents? What is happening to the conscience of this
party? The Grand Old Party has sunk to a low of coming to this House
floor trying to cut the budget of America in order to protect the tax
cut for the wealthiest people in this country.
Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for our senior citizens that build this
country up, not knock them down for the sake of our pockets today.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think this is the most difficult bill
I have debated in 15 years. Going to war was easy compared to this.
I come here with the greatest respect for the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter] because I think he was given the most impossible and most
unfair task that any subcommittee Chair should ever be asked to do. I
do not blame him, because he was given a 602(b) allocation cutting $10
billion from last year, and I got to talk to my own party.
Our macro priority of balancing the budget is absolutely right, but
the micro priority that cuts $10 billion in human investment is
absolutely wrong and we will pay for that for future generations in
this country.
We all want to break down the barriers to trade for a global economy.
We all want to pass the tax incentives to modernize and equip business
for high technology, and we somehow suggest that in that process there
is no time, there is no effort, and there are no resources to train and
to educate a skilled force to be able to compete in that high
technology global economy.
One cannot cut 63 percent from child training programs and expect
those kids to get off the street and to give up crime and drugs and to
go to work. One cannot cut 33 percent from the adult job training
programs in 1 year and expect that we are going to transition rural
America, where I come from, where we are losing farm jobs, or the inner
city, where some of you come from, where we are losing industrial jobs,
and expect us to put those people back to work. Because we do not like
the delivery systems of the past does not give us the right to deny
that the problems exist, and that is the problem with the bill in front
of us, and it is the price that our party will pay, which I personally
regret, but worse than that, that our Nation will pay, that every one
of us as a citizen must be totally disturbed by.
We are debating the section on health care. I do not know what some
of you know about health care, but I've got to tell you, we are
struggling to keep the hospital open in my hometown, and we are
struggling in western Wisconsin to give people an access to emergency
lifesaving care, and this bill guts, totally guts, trauma care. Zero
money.
Now, when you close down our hospitals and you eliminate our
emergency health care, that is not a problem in some of America's
beautiful suburbs, but I got to tell you, that is life and death in
rural Wisconsin. It is not just the State offices of rural health being
eliminated. Probably some of them should not have been continued. It is
not just eliminating the Office of Rural Health or a 43-percent cut in
transition grants. It is the basic bottom line. We have got to find
some different priorities or, trust me, we will pay a lot more in the
future.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] on his
commendation of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the other
statements that he made about priorities.
It is not necessary for us to have had to do what the gentleman has
had to do in bringing the bill before us today. There was an
alternative budget that was out, but I want to speak just briefly to
the area of rural health, something that is a minor portion of this
bill but is a major portion to my district, appropriations for rural
health.
I want to just say I am confused, because it seems to me that the
committee report states that big government is better and small
government is not preferable, and I talk specifically about the Office
of Rural Health, and I would like to submit for the Record what I have
received from the Texas Rural Health Association and the Texas State
Grange in support of the good work done by the Federal office.
These folks do not talk about some distant bureaucratic wasteful
Federal office. They talk about a friendly face, an advocate in
Government which rolls up its sleeves and provides support and advice
and administers small but vital programs. It helps them communicate
with other rural programs across the country. These are the kinds of
things that are working in our Government and should not be left out.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk briefly about something which is a very
minor portion of this bill but which is of huge importance to my
district and my State--appropriations for rural health.
I do want to thank my Texas colleague, Mr. Bonilla, for his good work
in promoting a number of rural health programs in this bill and I also
want to thank Chairman Porter and the committee for recognizing the
importance of programs such as the National Health Service Corps and
outreach grants.
I do have to day, however, that I am confused by one decision the
committee made and confused by the committee report language which
explained that decision.
The committee report stated:
[[Page H 8327]]
The [Federal Office of Rural Health Policy's] size and
location at HRSA limit its impact on Federal health
reimbursement policies and other concerns of rural areas.
What I am unclear about is whether the committee is suggesting that
small government can not be effective, that big government is
preferable?
It's true that the office is tiny, especially in government
standards. It employs only 15 people out of a total of 60,000 HHS. The
funding is tiny as well. Very few Federal offices can operate
effectively with less than $10 million. But the Office represents the
best concentration of expertise on rural health in the Federal
Government. Even with their David status, they have taken on the
Goliath of HHS and frequently been victorious. The Office has been
instrumental in raising the awareness that a one-size-fits-all approach
does not work in rural America. For example, they have helped to win
victories on hospital reimbursements and small laboratory regulation.
Or, is the committee arguing that the Federal Office should be
enlarged and raised in the Department structure?
As one who was around when the bipartisan Rural Health Coalition
first called for the creation of this office, I can tell you that it
was intentionally established outside of Department headquarters to
ensure that it would serve as a quasi-independent office to look out
for the concerns of rural health. It functions as a broker, not a
bureaucracy. In fact, you might say it was intended to be a thorn in
the side of Federal bureaucracy.
Today, the Office is the Federal voice bringing attention to
obstacles in the path of rural telemedicine and rural managed care. It
is also the Government's only official rural voice in the debate over
restructuring Medicaid and Medicare. We would be happy for it to be
bigger or higher if the committee wishes to finance such stature, but
absent that, let's make sure we support its current role rather than
eliminating it, as this bill does.
I would like to submit for the record letters I have received from
the Texas Rural Health Association and the Texas State Grange in
support of the good work done by the Federal Office. These folks do not
talk about some distant, bureaucratic, wasteful Federal office. They
talk about a friendly face and advocate in the Government which rolls
up its sleeves, provides support and advice, administers small but
vital programs, helps them communicate with other rural programs across
the country, and assists them in avoiding mistakes and duplication. In
these days when so few people speak of positive experiences with the
Federal Government, why would we want to eliminate one of the bright
lights that exists?
Like my constituents, I certainly hope that before this appropriation
bill is signed into law, funding for these valuable services will be
restored.
Texas State Grange,
San Antonio, TX, July 31, 1995.
Hon. Charles W. Stenholm,
17th Congressional District of Texas.
Dear Representative Stenholm: The Texas State Grange is
very concerned with the cuts/elimination of funding for the
rural health care programs contained in the FY'96
appropriation bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. If passed,
this bill will eliminate the following essential rural health
care programs:
Federal Office of Rural Health, State offices of rural
health, rural health research, telemedicine, new rural health
grants, trauma care, and essential access community
hospitals.
The Federal Office of Rural Health is the only office that
provides a voice for rural health care in Washington, D.C. It
is also a crucial link in the federal-state-local health care
provider chain. This office needs to be maintained, not
eliminated.
While we understand that when originally authorized,
funding for the State Offices of Rural Health was to be
eventually phased out, not all states have made an investment
in their State Offices of Rural Health. Ten to fifteen of the
offices predict they will close if funding is eliminated now.
Rural residents comprise approximately 22% of our
population. In addition, farmers have the highest percentage
of injuries and/or deaths per industry. Eliminating funds for
trauma care (and EACH is shortsighted) and as more rural
hospitals are forced to close, funds for telemedicine become
a necessity for those communities.
The Texas State Grange recognizes and appreciates the 104th
Congress' attempts to be fiscally-minded in its
appropriations. However, zeroing out funds for essential
services to rural health care programs is not a ``fair
share'' cut.
We ask that if floor amendments are brought up dealing with
reinstating funds for rural health care programs, you will
vote ``yes''! Thank you.
Sincerely,
Archie D. Knight.
____
Texas Rural Health Association,
Austin, TX, August 2, 1995.
Hon. Charles Stenholm,
Longworth House Office Building,
Room 1211,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Stenholm: The House will be voting this
week to eliminate the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy
(ORHP). As President of the Texas Rural Health Association, I
implore you not to let this happen. The Office of Rural
Health Policy is a voice for rural health in America. Jeff
Humans and his very concerned and committed staff monitor
what is happening to the health of rural Americans and advise
the Secretary of HHS as to trends and needs. This Office
helps coordinate and guide what would otherwise be totally
fragmented and potentially duplicative rural efforts of other
Federal agencies.
ORHP Programs like the Rural Health Outreach Grant Program
(RHOG) help promote the development of community coalitions
to improve the delivery of health care by maximizing
available resources. In Mount Pleasant, Texas, RHOG funds
were employed to open a high risk prenatal clinic. In East
Texas, RHOG funds are being used to develop a network of lay
health advocates through area minority churches and housing
projects to assist with health outreach and education.
The telemedicine grant program helps bring specialty care
to rural Americans, lessens provider professional isolation,
and enables patients to stay in their communities. The ORHP
Rural Research Centers provide a very important glimpse into
rural health care delivery systems--helping us determine what
works, under what circumstances, and where--this is real
world research.
Through the State Offices of Rural Health, the Center for
Rural Health Initiatives here in Texas, the ORHP helps link
health providers and communities, provides technical
assistance, and is a continuing source of local support.
In sum, the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy
represents rural Americans, it hears rural voices. We cannot
afford to lose it!
Sincerely,
Gail R. Bellamy,
President.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Hinchey].
(Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, Republicans have been running ads about
how they are helping the children in the next generation by reducing
the deficit. That is very nice but they are making sure that the kids
pay for it by cutting programs that help those same kids and provide
them with an education.
Elementary and secondary education cuts force communities to make an
unwelcome choice. They either reduce the services that Federal funds
paid for or they raise property taxes to keep them going. Either way,
it is the people least able to help themselves, children or older
homeowners with fixed incomes who are being required to pay the bills.
This bill cuts funding for title I compensatory education by $1.1
billion, that is 17 percent. My state, New York, will lose $123
million, and 100,000 New York students will be affected.
This program has the strongest support of any Federal education
program from our own school districts, whether they are urban, rural,
liberal, or conservative. They tell us how important the program is.
The program cuts funding for safe and drug free schools. It will cost
New York $59 million at the same time that we hear about students
shooting other students and selling drugs in schools.
It is time that we had some rationale about what we are doing and
pass a sensible bill. This bill needs to be defeated.
Republicans have been running ads about how they are helping children
and the next generation by reducing the deficit. That's very nice, but
they are making sure that the kids pay for it by cutting programs that
help kids and that provide them with an education.
Elementary and secondary education cuts force communities to make an
unwelcome choice: either reduce the services that Federal funds paid
for, or raise property taxes to keep them going. Either way, it is the
people least able to help themselves--children or older homeowners with
fixed incomes--who are being required to pay the bills.
The bill would cut funding for title I compensatory education by $1.1
billion, 17 percent. New York will lose $103 million, and 100,000 New
York students will be affected. Title I pays for remedial education. It
has the strongest support of any Federal education program from our own
school districts--liberal and conservative, rural and urban. They tell
us how important they think the program is.
It cuts funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programs by 59
percent, $286 million nationwide, $59 million in New York. Does this
make sense when we hear almost daily about students shooting other
students, or students selling drugs in schools?
[[Page H 8328]]
It cuts funding for children at risk--52-percent cut in Healthy
Start, HHS program to reduce infant mortality; $137 million in Head
Start, cutting 60,000 children out of Nancy Reagan's favorite program
for children; cut of 20 percent in programs for homeless children.
It cuts funding for education reform--$250 million in funding for
Eisenhower Professional Development Program for teacher improvement;
total elimination of funding for Goals 2000, to improve and upgrade
school curricula. Cost to NY: $18.8 million for Eisenhower, $27 million
for Goals. Goals was the product of the bipartisan effort by governors,
blessed by the Bush Administration, to respond to the ``Nation at
Risk'' report which said that our education system was weak enough and
inconsistent enough that it threatened our economic future.
So, maybe today's kids will be paying less in Federal taxes--but
they'll be living in a third-rate economy that was too cheap to give
them the good education that all children need and deserve.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
(Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, the real story of this bill is that it is
punishing those in the dawn of life, our children, and those in the
twilight of life, our senior citizens.
In the case of the elderly, if this bill passes in its present form,
our Nation better get out the ambulances. At a time when our aging
population is growing so rapidly, this bill hits 16 key programs for
the elderly that are a lifeline for our seniors. It eliminates programs
like the elderly abuse program at a time when elderly abuse has gone up
94 percent over the last 5 years. These are seniors that are being
physically abused. They are being exploited. They are in a position
where they cannot defend themselves and, yet, this Congress eliminates
that program.
The same is true of the long-term care ombudsman program, a program
that provides an early warning signal to seniors that are being abused
in long-term care.
Let us not do this. We have supported those programs in the past on a
bipartisan basis. Let us keep them strong for our Nation's seniors.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
(Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what the
Republicans and what the chairman of this committee is trying to lay
before the House.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill. H.R. 2127 is an assault on our Nation's most
vulnerable.
Mr. Chairman, historically, the Labor-HHS-Education bill has been a
testament to our commitment to the things which have held our Nation
together: good health, education, and jobs.
But this bill is a disgrace. In one giant sweep we manage to cut the
funding for programs that alleviate the misery this Nation experiences
from lack of economic opportunity and poor health.
If this bill is passed, we will turn our backs on poor mothers,
babies and young people.
healthy start
Healthy Start cuts will deepen the infant mortality crisis in the
United States.
The bill will cut Healthy Start by $55 million in 1996 and eliminate
funding after 1996.
The United States--the wealthiest and most industrialized country in
the world--has an infant mortality rate that is worse than many third
world countries.
Babies born in the United States are less likely to reach their first
birthday than babies born in 22 other industrialized countries.
In my district alone, the infant mortality rate is over 17 percent.
In other urban areas across the United States, the infant mortality
rate is over 20 percent.
These cuts will be devastating to the public hospital in my
congressional district that is struggling to reduce the number of low-
birthweight babies.
Low-Income home energy assistance
Abolishing funding for LIHEAP will worsen the devastating effects of
this summer's heat wave.
According to the public health officials, over 700 people have died
from the heat wave this summer. Of these, 550 were in Chicago which has
had temperatures as high as 103 degrees and average temperatures of 96
degrees. Are we going to turn our backs on the hundreds that could die
as a result of eliminating LIHEAP?
The National Weather Service predicts that this heatwave will
continue unabated. Are we going to turn our backs on the 6 million
families who will suffer if LIHEAP is eliminated?
summer youth employment
This bill cancels appropriations for summer jobs for young people.
The President rightfully requested $958 million for this program.
In Memphis, over 30,000 young people have benefited from this program
since 1984.
In 1995, Memphis received $2.3 million and employed 1,600 kids who
worked in summer jobs as a result of this program.
Summer jobs give our neediest young people a vital income and keeps
them productive when school is out.
conclusion
Abolishing Healthy Start, summer jobs, and energy assistance will
result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.
In South Carolina, a jury sentenced Susan Smith to life imprisonment
for killing two innocent children.
What will the sentence be for Republicans who are cutting programs
that will cost the lives of thousands?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to balance the budget for our
children. I agree. I voted for a balanced budget amendment this year
and in years past. I voted for the Stenholm amendment to balance the
budget in 7 years.
But those who stand on this floor and say we are balancing the budget
do not tell the truth. We are taking $9 billion from children that my
constituents do not believe are pork, from seniors that my constituents
do not think is waste, from rural health that my constituents do not
believe is fraud, and from people who need energy assistance to keep
warm and cool in distress, and people do not believe that is abuse.
Mr. Chairman, we are taking that $9 billion and we are giving it not
to balance the budget, not to bring down the deficit, not to save our
children from debt, but we are taking that money and we are shifting it
over here to the wealthiest Americans among us so that they can have a
tax cut.
We are not saving any money. We are not reducing the deficit by these
cuts. In point of fact, we have been on a downhill slide on domestic
spending like education and like health care.
Reject this bill. It is bad for America, it is bad for the future, it
is bad for our children, and it does not make sense.
{time} 1215
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Mr. Chairman, all of us in Congress have our priorities. We are rural
or city. We are putting education or health or national defense or
agriculture at the top of our list. Every one of us are here crying for
a balanced budget, provided we do so on someone else's priorities.
The gentleman from Indiana, the gentleman from Wisconsin said earlier
it is the B-2 bomber that is the problem. We are for balancing the
budget provided we do it on the B-2 bomber or national defense or
elsewhere.
Let me say that you cannot balance the budget on someone else's
priorities. Everyone has to contribute to this process. I voted against
the B-2 bomber, consistently. I am voting against tax cuts now until
the budget is into balance. We cannot do it without everybody giving
something to the process. Those who say balance it on someone else's
priorities are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
If I may say to the gentleman on the other side and some on my side
as well, the funding under this section of the bill is not going down.
It is going from $181 to $198.2 billion. It is going up substantially.
The cut in the discretionary portion is 3.5 percent and in services
probably a good deal less than 3 percent.
Should it make a contribution? Yes. Is this the way to move toward a
balanced budget? Yes. I believe that we have done a very responsible
job in handling this section of the bill. I think the hyperbole on the
other side is, frankly, just that, hyperbole.
[[Page H 8329]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Time for general debate on title II has expired.
Are there any amendments to title II?
amendment offered by mr. moran
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment numbered 95, offered by Mr. Moran: Page 30, line
13, insert before the period the following: ``: Provided
further, That of the funds made available under this heading,
$7,500,000 shall be available for carrying out the activities
of the Office of Alternative Medicine under section 404E of
the Public Health Service Act''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of yesterday, the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran] will be recognized for 10 minutes in support of
the amendment, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] wish to claim the time
as the opponent?
Mr. PORTER. We have no objection to the amendment, so if there is a
Member opposed, they should claim the time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I know of no one who objects to the
amendment. I would like to explain it, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply earmarks an additional
$1.9 million within the Office of the Director of NIH for the Office of
Alternative Medicine. It does not increase the budget. In fact, as I
say, this is unallocated money, but I think it is terribly important
that we put a little bit more money into the Office of Alternative
Medicine.
You know, 80 percent of the world's medicine is considered
alternative medicine. It is amazing, the fact that 80 percent of the
rest of the world uses different therapies than the conventional
therapies that we use in the United States and that, in fact, 50
percent of the American people who are faced with a very serious
illness like cancer try alternative medicines. In fact, they pay out of
pocket about $10 billion. As much as they pay out of pocket for
hospital care, they are paying out of pocket, uninsured, for
alternative approaches to traditional medicine.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I came across this issue because of a personal
experience in our family. My child had a malignant brain tumor and had
maybe a 10- to 20-percent chance of living up to the age of 5, we were
told, and so it was recommended to take the
traditional approach, which is surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.
Essentially cut, poison, and burn.
The surgery was not able to get all of the tumor and so we gave her
chemotherapy. We soon realized, the debilitating effect that
chemotherapy was having on her. She is only a 3-year-old, but it
generally has an adverse impact on anyone taking chemotherapy. We also
put off the radiation.
A story was written about our situation, and we got thousands of
letters from all over the world, primarily from the United States. We
got boxes of them. I do not have the time to read them. My wife has
been reading most of them. It is amazing the common experiences that
are shared and the fact that the majority of people have tried
alternative approaches and yet they do not have anywhere to go to
determine the efficacy of these different approaches, because there are
no random clinical professional trials done on most of these
approaches.
We are trying something that we found out about from hundreds of
people who have had success with powdered shark cartilage. People wince
when we mention it. We do not have anywhere to go to determine whether,
and under what conditions, it is likely to be effective, but the
reality is, it seems to be working with our daughter in combination
with high doses of vitamin C and other nutrients.
I only mention the personal experience because our experience is
being shared by thousands of families, if not millions across the
country. We need some professional analysis. We need random trials that
are done in a professional, scrupulous manner.
We have a new director at the Office of Alternative Medicine with the
right kind of background in clinical trials. He was at Walter Reed. He
is an extremely competent physician. He is going to direct this office,
but we need to give him at least the minimal amount of resources to
determine whether some of these alternative therapies work.
They will be done in collaboration with what the other National
Institutes of Health are doing, and so I would urge that this small
amount of increase to the Office of Alternative Medicine, which would
bring it up to $7.5 million out of billions we put into the total
budget for the National Institutes of Health, be approved by this body
and that we make some progress in giving the kind of professional
analysis we have the ability to provide, to so many American families
who are desperately in need of it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr.
DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time
to me. The issue is, you know, will we transfer a small amount of
funds, $1.9 million, to the Office of Alternative Medicine. The
director's office from which we would transfer this receives $3.5
million more than the President asked for. The Office of Alternative
Medicine is receiving the same small amount of funds it got last year.
We are in kind of a catch-22. People say to me, well, Congressman,
your idea is here, the ideas expressed by Mr. Moran are not clinically
and scientifically proven, but we are not funding the Office of
Alternative Medicine so we can conduct those scientific and clinical
tests.
You know, the problem is many of these potential cures are nonpro-
prietary. They are not going to be billion dollar drugs. Many of them
are natural substances. Many of them have long been in use in other
countries. They cannot be patented in the United States under current
law. They are orphans.
So unless the Office of Alternative Medicine has the budget to
research these substances, to do clinical tests, we are not going to
move forward.
This is preventive medicine. It can save tremendous amounts of money.
You can look at folic acid for heart attack prevention. A lot of
documentation in other countries, some in this country, but no
clinically scientifically proven tests, so doctors are prescribing
other things that perhaps are not even as effective.
Degylcyrrhizinated licorice, tough word to say, for stomach problems,
as opposed to tagamet and other proprietary drugs, not a lot enthusiasm
out there for something that you can buy for $15 a month when you can
prescribe something for $100 or $200 a month.
If we are going to save money, if we are going to have a healthier
populous, we need to begin looking at some of these alternatives, and
this small amount of money transferred over to the already existing
Office of Alternative Medicine, doing nothing to impact the director's
budget which will still exceed the President's request, would move this
country forward tremendously, and it would meet the goals of all of us
who want to see that Americans have the widest range of choices
available to them when they or their loved ones have health problems.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, since it is such an important topic, I am going to make
a few more remarks, and I appreciate the fact that the chairman is not
opposed to this amendment. In fact, he would probably like me to speed
this up as rapidly as possible and get on to more controversial
amendments.
{time} 1230
I think it is important to recognize that with a $1 trillion health
budget, 70 percent of the illnesses that we come down with are
preventable, if we had a better concept of how to keep ourselves
healthy, and that is largely what this is all about. It is determining
how we can bring about the healthiest population possible and not
rejecting things because they are not taught in traditional schools of
medicine, even though they have been used efficaciously throughout the
globe.
So I would appreciate greater attention being given to what I think
is an area at NIH that holds tremendous
[[Page H 8330]]
promise, that does not cost a lot of money. The rewards are going to be
far more than what they cost for investing in the Office of Alternative
Medicine.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member who wishes to be recognized in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it is acceptable on both
sides of the aisle.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
The text of title III is as follows:
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
education reform
For carrying out activities authorized by titles II and III
of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, $95,000,000, which
shall become available on July 1, 1996, and remain available
through September 30, 1997.
education for the disadvantaged
For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, $6,014,499,000, which shall become
available on July 1, 1996 and shall remain available through
September 30, 1997: Provided, That up to $3,500,000 of these
funds shall be available to the Secretary on October 1, 1995
to obtain updated local-educational-agency-level census
poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further,
That no funds shall be reserved under section 1003(a) of said
Act.
impact aid
For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $645,000,000,
of which $550,000,000 shall be for basic support payments
under section 8003(b), $40,000,000 shall be for payments for
children with disabilities under section 8003(d),
$50,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for
payments under section 8003(f), and $5,000,000 shall be for
construction under section 8007: Provided, That
notwithstanding the provisions of section 8003(a)(2),
children described in section 8003(a)(1)(D) shall have a
weight of zero for the purpose of computing basic support
payments under section 8003(b) and construction payments
under section 8007: Provided further, That no payments shall
be made under section 8003(d) or 8003(g) for children
described in section 8003(a)(1)(D): Provided further, That
none of the funds provided shall be used for payments under
section 8003(e).
school improvement programs
For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by titles II, IV-A-1, V-A, VI, and X of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act; $842,000,000, of which $723,000,000
shall become available on July 1, 1996, and remain available
through September 30, 1997.
bilingual and immigrant education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
bilingual and immigrant education activities authorized by
title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
$103,000,000: Provided, That State educational agencies may
use all, or any part of, their part C allocation for
competitive grants to local educational agencies: Provided
further, That the Department of Education should only support
instructional programs which ensure that students completely
master English in a timely fashion (a period of three to five
years) while meeting rigorous achievement standards in the
academic content areas: Provided further, That no funds shall
be available for subpart 3 of part A.
special education
For carrying out parts B, C, D, F, and H of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, $3,092,491,000, of which
$3,000,000,000 shall become available for obligation on July
1, 1996, and shall remain available through September 30,
1997.
rehabilitation services and disability research
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Technology-Related Assistance
for Individuals with Disabilities Act, and the Helen Keller
National Center Act, as amended, $2,455,760,000.
Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities
american printing house for the blind
For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20
U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $4,000,000.
national technical institute for the deaf
For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under
titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $39,737,000: Provided, That from the
amount available, the Institute may at its discretion use
funds for the endowment program as authorized under section
207.
gallaudet university
For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model
Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of
Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education
of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
$72,028,000: Provided, That from the amount available, the
University may at its discretion use funds for the endowment
program as authorized under section 207.
vocational and adult education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education
Act, the Adult Education Act, and the National Literacy Act
of 1991, $1,057,919,000, of which $1,055,000,000 shall become
available on July 1, 1996 and shall remain available through
September 30, 1997: Provided, That of the amounts made
available under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act, $1,000,000 shall be for national
programs under title IV without regard to section 451.
student financial assistance
For carrying out subparts 1 and 3 of part A, part C, and
part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $6,916,915,000, which shall remain available through
September 30, 1997.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 1996-1997 shall be $2,440:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, as
amended, if the Secretary determines, prior to publication of
the payment schedule for award year 1996-1997, that the
$5,697,000,000 included within this appropriation for Pell
Grant awards for award year 1996-1997, and any funds
available from the fiscal year 1995 appropriation for Pell
Grant awards, are insufficient to satisfy fully all such
awards for which students are eligible, as calculated under
section 401(b) of the Act, the amount paid for each such
award shall be reduced by either a fixed or variable
percentage, or by a fixed dollar amount, as determined in
accordance with a schedule of reductions established by the
Secretary for this purpose: Provided further, That no Pell
grant shall be awarded to any student during award year 1996-
1997 if the amount of that grant as determined under section
401(b) of the Act is less than $600.
federal family education loan program account
For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed
student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher
Education Act, as amended, $30,066,000.
higher education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
parts A and B of title III, without regard to section
360(a)(1)(B)(ii), chapter 1 of subpart 2 of part A of title
IV, subpart 2 of part E of title V, parts A and B of title
VI, title VII, part D of title IX, and part A and subpart 1
of part B of title X of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, and the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act
of 1961; $757,700,000, of which $16,712,000 for interest
subsidies under title VII of the Higher Education Act, as
amended, shall remain available until expended.
howard university
For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $170,366,000.
higher education facilities loans
The Secretary is hereby authorized to make such
expenditures, within the limits of funds available under this
heading and in accord with law, and to make such contracts
and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitation, as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary in carrying out the
program for the current fiscal year.
college housing and academic facilities loans program
For administrative expenses to carry out the existing
direct loan program of college housing and academic
facilities loans entered into pursuant to title VII, part C,
of the Higher Education Act, as amended, $700,000.
college housing loans
Pursuant to title VII, part C of the Higher Education Act,
as amended, for necessary expenses of the college housing
loans program, previously carried out under title IV of the
Housing Act of 1950, the Secretary shall make expenditures
and enter into contracts without regard to fiscal year
limitation using loan repayments and other resources
available to this account. Any unobligated balances becoming
available from fixed fees paid into this account pursuant to
12 U.S.C. 1749d, relating to payment of costs for inspections
and site visits, shall be available for the operating
expenses of this account.
historically black college and university capital financing, program
account
The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 724
of title VII, part B of the Higher Education Act shall not
exceed $357,000,000, and the cost, as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of such bonds shall
not exceed zero.
For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically
Black College and University Capital Financing Program
entered into pursuant to title VII, part B of the Higher
Education Act, as amended, $166,000.
education research, statistics, and improvement
For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act;
the National Education Statistics Act; part A of title III,
parts A and B and section 10601 of
[[Page H 8331]]
title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $255,107,000: Provided, That $3,000,000 shall be for
section 10601 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act:
Provided further, That $25,000,000 shall be for section 3136
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (K-12
technology learning challenge): Provided further, That none
of the funds appropriated in this paragraph may be obligated
or expended for the Goals 2000 Community Partnerships
Program.
libraries
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
titles I and III of the Library Services and Construction
Act, $101,227,000.
Departmental Management
program administration
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two
passenger motor vehicles, $327,319,000.
office for civil rights
For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as
authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $53,951,000.
office of the inspector general
For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector
General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of
Education Organization Act, $28,154,000.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or
for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or
school system.
Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring
special education, to the school offering such special
education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an
indirect requirement of transportation of students includes
the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving
the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the
pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any
combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering.
The prohibition described in this section does not include
the establishment of magnet schools.
Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation in the public schools.
Sec. 304. No funds appropriated under this Act shall be
made available for opportunity to learn standards or
strategies.
Sec. 305. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
available for section 458 of the Higher Education Act shall
not exceed $320,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, of which
$160,000,000 shall be available for the payment of
administrative cost allowances to guaranty agencies. The
Department of Education shall, within 30 days of enactment,
develop a plan for the payment of administrative cost
allowances which shall be submitted to the Chairs of the
House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and
the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Notwithstanding section 458 of the Higher Education Act, the
Secretary may not use funds available under that section for
subsequent fiscal years for administrative expenses of the
William D. Ford Direct Loan Program during fiscal year 1996,
nor may the Secretary require the return of guaranty agency
reserve funds during fiscal year 1996.
No funds available to the Secretary may be used for (1)
marketing, advertising or promotion of the William D. Ford
Direct Loan Program, or for the hiring of advertising
agencies or other third parties to provide advertising
services, or (2) payment of administrative fees relating to
the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program to institutions of
higher education.
None of the funds provided by this Act may be used to hire
staff at the Department of Education if such hiring would
increase on-board employment at the Department as of the date
of enactment of this Act.
None of the funds provided by this Act may be used to
conduct an evaluation of the William D. Ford Direct Loan
Program except as administered by the Advisory Committee on
Student Financial Assistance.
None of the funds provided by this Act may be used by the
Department of Education to implement new Individual
Procurement Agreements (IPAs).
Sec. 306. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
obligated or expended to carry out sections 727, 932, and
1002 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, section 621(b) of
Public Law 101-589, the President's Advisory Commission on
Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, and the
President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges
and Universities.
Sec. 307. Section 444(b)(1)(E) of the General Education
Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(E)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(E) State and local officials or authorities to whom such
information is specifically--
``(i) required to be reported or disclosed pursuant to
State statute adopted before November 19, 1974;
``(ii) allowed to be reported or disclosed pursuant to
State statute adopted before November 19, 1974, if the
allowed reporting or disclosure concerns the juvenile justice
system and such system's ability to effectively serve the
student whose records are released, or
``(iii) allowed to be reported or disclosed pursuant to
State statute adopted after November 19, 1974, if--
``(I) the allowed reporting or disclosure concerns the
juvenile justice system and such system's ability to
effectively serve, prior to adjudication, the student whose
records are released; and
``(II) the officials and authorities to whom such
information is disclosed certify in writing to the
educational agency or institution that the information will
not be disclosed to any other party except as provided under
State law without the prior written consent of the parent of
the student;''.
Sec. 308. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of
Education after December 31, 1995, to enforce title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) with
respect to gender equity in intercollegiate athletic
programs, except when it is made known to the Office that the
Department has issued updated policy guidance to institutions
of higher education which includes objective criteria
clarifying how such institutions can demonstrate a history
and continuing practice of program expansion for members of
the underrepresented sex and full and effective accommodation
of the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 1996''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] will be recognized for 45 minutes, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let us agree that if money, both
Federal, State, and local were the problem, we should have already
solved our education problems. Between 1960 and 1990, inflation
adjusted spending for education rose from $50 billion to almost $190
billion and per pupil spending, again adjusted for inflation, increased
from $1,454 in 1960 to $4,622 in 1990; an increase of over 300 percent
in real terms. However, student scores on their SAT's and National
Assessment of Educational Progress declined. Between 1976 and 1994,
Federal funding for elementary, secondary, and vocational education
rose from $4.6 billion to $14.8 billion, again, an increase of over 300
percent.
As in other titles, the bill sets clear priorities while providing
significant contributions to our goal of eliminating the Federal
deficit by 2000.
Total discretionary funding for the Department of Education declines
by $4.5 billion from the fiscal year 1995 originally enacted levels and
$3.7 billion from the post-rescission levels.
The bill places a high priority on student assistance. The maximum
Pell grant is increased by $100 to $2,440, the largest increase ever
provided to raise the grants to the highest levels in history, Federal
Supplemental Educational Opportunity grants, Federal Work-Study and
TRIO programs are all held at last year's levels.
The Committee recommendation maintains the $6 billion available for
Perkins loans. While ending the Federal contribution, prudent
management by the schools plus their continued contribution to this
high priority program will allow the balance available for loans to
students to increase.
The bill eliminates over 90 mostly small, duplicative programs in the
Department of Education.
The mark terminates many of over 50 planning, dissemination,
technical assistance, and research programs in education, including
Goals 2000.
The Goals 2000 program initiated by the Bush administration was a
voluntary effort by States to develop and implement goals and
standards. The current program is simply another Federal grant-in-aid
program which, while having few formal requirements, will see a
proliferation of informal rules and specifications as it is implemented
down through the multi-layered bureaucracy of the Washington office and
the regional offices.
While this program has no specific, written substantive requirements,
there are many connections between Goals 2000 and funding for other
programs. Not so subtle pressures will
[[Page H 8332]]
surely arise to address issues such as opportunity to learn, gender
equity and other issues that are part of the administration's national
educational policy.
This account funds National Opportunity to Learn Standards and School
Financial Equity programs. The administration would impose these social
experiments on localities with little evaluation and where evaluation
exists, it indicates that there is little relationship between spending
and learning outcomes. According to Dr. Dianne Ravitch ``... No one
knows what such standards are, so it seems premature to expect States
to establish them.''
School-to-Work and tech-prep activities are funded at $190 million in
anticipation of their inclusion in larger block grants. These programs
are slated to be consolidated into a block grant by the Economic and
Educational Opportunities Committee and this funding level was decided
upon in anticipation action by the authorization committee.
Title I funding for Education for the Disadvantaged is reduced by
$1.14 billion, or 17.9 percent based on evaluations indicating little
impact and the fact that the broad distribution of funds, to even the
wealthiest school districts in America, diffuses the effectiveness of
this program.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe very strongly that this
money should be targeted only to the schools most in need, those in the
inner cities and rural areas that have a high percentage of at risk
children, and not be sent to school districts all over the country,
including those in the most wealthy areas, as it is today. The program
is extremely poorly targeted.
Mr. Chairman, according to the final report of the National
Assessment of the chapter I program, the program ``* * * Does not
appear to be helping close the learning gap.'' Recently enacted reforms
make some changes, but their impact on performance is unclear.
There is little targeting in the program, 90 percent of the local
school districts receive funding from this program, including many of
the most wealthy school districts in the country. Those districts that
do not participate are generally not those that are rich, but those
that are so small as to not meet the minimum number of poor school aged
children.
Four hundred eighty-nine million dollars of fiscal year 1994 funding
for Education for the Disadvantaged went to the 100 richest counties in
America--with per capita personal income ranging from $24,000 to
$49,000. While these counties surely contain disadvantaged children,
with this level of income, these localities can provide more of the
support for disadvantaged education themselves.
Impact Aid, which reimburses local schools for the costs of educating
military dependents, is reduced by 11 percent to $645 million. Funding
is targeted only to students whose parents live and work on Federal
installations. Funding for military ``b'' students is provided for in
the Defense bill.
Library service grants and inter-library cooperation
programs are supported at approximately last year's level while funds
are terminated for smaller, categorical library programs.
The bill amends authorizing statutes to limit the administrative
costs of the Direct Student Loan Program and to prevent implementation
of opportunity to learn standards.
Opportunity to learn standards focus on inputs rather than results.
They divert attention to issues such as amounts spent per pupil, class
size, years of schooling of the teacher, numbers of computers, and
allow justification of failure rather than the focus on results.
This title represents the clearest example of priority setting by the
committee, of elimination of duplicative and redundant programs and of
reform of programs and administration.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, in the first section of our debate we discussed what
this bill was doing to cripple our workers and worker programs. In the
second section we talked about what it was doing to savage programs
that support the most vulnerable people in this society. Now we are
turning to a discussion of how this bill is, pure and simple, an attack
on education.
This bill is the anti-education appropriation act of 1995, pure and
simple. It cuts 18 percent out of what we appropriated just last year
for Federal education programs. That means almost one out of every 5
dollars that was there a year ago will not be there this year.
It takes almost $2.5 billion away from local school districts, and
that is most assuredly going to result in lower quality and higher
property taxes. And it does it all to provide a $20,000 tax cut for
people making $350,000 a year.
I would suggest there are an awfully lot of people in society who
make that amount of money, who recognize that if they have to choose
between getting a $20,000 tax cut at that bracket, and seeing to it
that the basic education structure of this country is sound, they will
opt for education, because they know they cannot in the end disconnect
from society. You cannot achieve success by working up the opportunity
ladder yourselves, and then pull it on up so that someone else cannot
use that ladder as well.
The answer from the Republican side of the aisle seems to be, Well,
our education programs do not work, so let's give up and give some rich
guy a tax cut. Well, I do not think that is an especially effective way
to go about it.
I have one last simple thought: For as long as I have been in this
House, support for education has been a bipartisan proposition. But
whether back home in Wisconsin, when I served in the legislature, or
here in the Congress, support for education has always been bipartisan.
Look at some of the programs that are named after distinguished
Republican leaders in the area of education: Stafford, Javitz,
Goldwater, Eisenhower. Has this party really moved even beyond them?
Are they no longer acceptable? I simply do not believe it.
It just seems to me that the most fundamental purpose of any society
is to see to it that its children are made top priority, that they
receive decent opportunity, decent education. That is what this bill
walks away from. That is why this bill ought to be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] be allowed to control my time and yield time from
this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let us get back to basics on this and why we are doing
this. These are tough choices we are making. It is not easy to have to
establish priorities in our spending. But that is exactly what we are
doing. So let us remember what we are doing. We are balancing the
budget, the most important single thing we can do for the generation
today and for future generations.
Let me just show you what numbers amount to. The budget of
approximately $176 billion means we are overspending right now $670 for
every man, woman, and child in this country. We are overspending. We
are going into debt. I have a family with two children. That is $2,700
worth of debt we are going into this year. We have a debt for every
man, woman, and child in this country of over $18,000 per person. We
are going to build it and get it larger and larger, and spend more and
more on interest.
So our goal is to balance this budget, start that glide path to a
balanced budget. The other side just wants to spend, spend, spend, and
we know how to spend in Washington. We have had lots of experience in
spending for the past 25 years. We have to get some sense and fiscal
sanity to what we are doing here.
We keep hearing the rhetoric: We are cutting this. We heard it
earlier this year: We cut the school lunch program. We increased it by
4.5 percent. They say we are cutting Medicare. We are increasing
Medicare spending from $4,800 for every man and woman in Medicare, to
$6,700, in 7 years, in the Medicare Program. We are increasing
spending. So the most important thing we can do is to balance this
budget and get on that glide path. It is important to every American.
Let me show why. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, Mr.
[[Page H 8333]]
Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board appeared before us
on two different occasions, discussing what would it mean if we
balanced the budget. He uses the word remarkable, what is going to
happen over the next years. Some of the thoughts he is talking about is
children will have a higher standard of living than their parents if we
can get this budget under control and stop wasting money on interest of
the national debt. There will be improvement in the purchasing power of
their incomes. There will be a rise in productivity.
Our competitiveness in the world is important in this issue. There
would be a reduction in inflation. There is a strengthening of the
financial markets, actual rates of long-term economic growth. That
means jobs.
There would be a significant drop in long-term interest rates. He
says it will be around 2 percent; that is, for someone having a $75,000
mortgage on their home, that is about $100 a month less they are going
to have to spend on that mortgage. That is money in someone's pocket.
We have to get this deficit under control. That is what we are
talking about here today. We can say I wish we had more money here or
there. Maybe we could have changed it a little bit. These are tough
choices. We are trying to balance what we have to work with. We have to
live within our budget.
I have to live within my personal budget. Every American has to live
within a personal budget. Only the Federal budget has this credit card
that has no spending limit; you just spend, spend, spend. That is not
right. It is wrong. Balancing the budget is the best thing we will do
for every single American today and for the future generations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this title of the bill is education.
Americans believe strongly in education, and everybody on this floor
wants to balance the budget. As a matter of fact, unlike the gentleman
who just spoke, I voted to reduce the deficit by $500 billion in 1993.
The gentleman did not.
Whether conservative or liberal, all Americans believe in the
American opportunity society. My parents wanted me to have a better
life than they had. That is what I want for my three daughters, and,
yes, for my granddaughter. The United States is a great Nation because
we give people that opportunity, the opportunity to make a better life
for themselves and their children. Education is the doorway through
which American access that opportunity.
But this appropriation bill is an all-out assault on the American
opportunity society. The words opportunity society are meaningless if
you do not have the education you need to compete in today's global
marketplace. The word opportunity is meaningless if you cannot make a
living wage and your kids cannot get a good education in school.
Why are the Republicans waging this attack? The reason is not so they
can bring that deficit down, I tell my friend, but so that we can take
that money and shift it over to a tax cut for the wealthiest folks in
America.
{time} 1245
That is what we are doing. We are not taking that money that they
gentleman just talked about to bring down that $670 figure, what we are
doing is taking that money and shifting it over here for a tax cut: a
$245 billion tax cut.
Nobody likes paying taxes, but I do not talk to any constituents who
believe that it is not important to see that our kids are educated, and
that is what that title is about.
Mr. Chairman, what does this attack mean for local schools? Let me
talk about a school in my district, Carrollton Elementary School in
Prince George's County.
At Carrollton, parents attend workshops to learn what their children
are learning in the classroom to help their kids at home. We know if
parents are not doing the job, nothing we do is going to suffice. The
budget cuts in this bill would end those parent workshops.
Carrollton needs reading and writing materials to reach the new
higher educational standards the State of Maryland has set,
appropriately, so we can compete in the world markets. The school board
has approved them and the contract has been signed, but these budget
cuts will cancel that program.
Mr. Chairman, at Carrollton more than 100 third- and fourth-grade
students are struggling to learn to read. Some kids have a tough time.
These cuts mean the teacher who works to help those kids catch up with
their classmates will lose their job.
This is real. This is not some chart so that we can shift money to
the wealthiest in America, not bring down the deficit, I tell the
gentleman from Florida. It is to give that $245 billion cut, that seems
so important, at the expense of these kids.
The American people know that cutting support for kids at Carrollton
and across the country is bad educational and economic policy. That is
why the polls show, I tell my colleagues, over 90 percent of the voters
in America believe we must invest more, not less, in improving
education.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is shortsighted. I am going to mention this
again, but I want to mention it now, do not take my word for it. Let me
quote from a statement made by Secretary Terrel Bell, who served as the
Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan. It was not a Democratic
administration, you understand; Ronald Reagan. Let me read to my
colleagues what he says on July 13, 1995:
``The drastic and unwarranted education cuts made in congress by the
House Appropriations Subcommittee,'' the bill we are considering,
``must be restored or we will undercut community efforts to better
educate our children.''
He closes with this: ``The American people support educational
excellence, not political extremism.''
That is what he refers to this bill as. That, Mr. Chairman, was
Secretary Terrel Bell, the Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Chairman, let us reject this political extremism that is masked
as deficit reduction, when it shifts from our kids to the wealthiest
Americans our resources to improve this country.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman
of the Committee on Education and Economic Opportunities.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to put to rest, once and for all,
this phony business that has been going on in this House for many
weeks, in fact several months, where people keep trying to say that we
are taking from the poor and giving to the rich through a tax program.
Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about the tax program. Is a
$500 credit for home care for the rich? Darn right, it is not. It is
for the most needy people around here.
Is a $500 credit for long-term care insurance for the rich? One of
the most important things for senior citizens is that long-term care.
That is not for the rich.
Is a $2,000 IRA for the parent who stays at home for the rich? No,
that is not for the rich.
Is the $500 for an adoption? We talk about pro-choice/pro-life all
the time. Is that for the rich? No, it is not.
Mr. Chairman, I was a sucker for a while, thinking that the $500
credit for every child was for the rich. Then I got off my high horse
and did a little study, and I discovered that, as a matter of fact, 31
percent of that goes to families with incomes of $18,000 and less; 65
percent of it goes to families with incomes of $50,000 and less.
Yes, then they say, but what about capital gains? In my district,
every farmer and every fruit grower that I have is not rich by a long
sight, but they sure are at the point where they should be retiring and
they would love to retire.
If they retire, Mr. Chairman, they have to sell what it is they have
in order to take care of themselves in their golden years, or we have
to send money out to do that. But if they sell, between us and the
State, we take 60 percent of everything that they have.
So I think we ought to put that nonsense to rest.
If this were a perfect world, Mr. Chairman, I would be here screaming
[[Page H 8334]]
for billions more for education and billions more for training. I would
be screaming for what Terrel Bell said, which we had better emphasize.
He talked about quality education, and I have been here saying over
and over again for 20 years, just do not pour $40 billion into chapter
1. Do not just pour $20 billion into Head Start, if that is all you are
going to do. Pour it in to get quality. We do not
have any studies to really tell us that we have done a remarkable job
in helping the people that we wanted to try to help with that $60
billion of expenditure.
Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, the one thing I wanted to do with
a slight reduction in both of those areas is finally get a message out
there that they have to clean up their act and they have to provide
quality in every one of those programs, all over this Nation. Access is
not acceptable. Access will not serve us well in the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we can do the very best we can with
what we have, because if we do not, since it is not a perfect world, we
are then faced with a deficit that does this to the very young people
we are trying to train, the very young people we are trying to educate.
We are saying to them, after you get all your training and all your
education, we will take 80 percent of everything you make in tax
dollars. Why get up in the morning and go to work if that is what we
are going to do?
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can develop a program where we are talking
about quality education, quality training. I hope we will be in a
position sometime to put more money into those programs, and we will do
some of that today, after we are ensured that it is quality that we are
talking about.
Again, access is no longer acceptable, Mr. Chairman. It has to be
access to quality, because we are failing the very young people we are
trying to help because we are not giving them an opportunity to get a
piece of the American dream because they do not have, in many
instances, a quality program.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from California
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to say that the
statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is one of
the finer statements I have ever heard on this floor.
Mr. Chairman, just sending money without worrying about quality is
what has been wrong with this place. It is why the American taxpayer is
reacting. They want to see people served and they want to see them
served well.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked at this for years, very,
very effectively. Finally, the gentleman is in a position to really
impact that process, and I commend the gentleman for his good work.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. I rise
today to express my disgust with this bill. This is the bill where
Republicans rewrite the world in their own image--where they create
their own brave new world, if you will. They will weed out the poor,
the needy and the weak to provide subsidies to corporate interests and
tax cuts to the wealthy. And the middle class will foot the bill. A
world where capital is more important than labor.
Let me tell how this image will play out in New Jersey. According to
the Children's Defense Fund, this image will mean 3,850 children will
lose Head Start services, 54,200 New Jersey students will lose access
to remedial education through title I and 42,200 babies, preschoolers
and pregnant women in New Jersey will lose infant formula and other WIC
supplements. This is the new America Republicans have created for your
children and grandchildren.
The new America will have $4.5 billion less in funding for education,
less funding to keep schools safe and drug free and less funding for
young people struggling to earn a bachelors degree. The new America
will provide less assistance for dislocated workers, like the 2000
individuals working at MOTBY, in my district, unemployed due to recent
base closings. It will have fewer resources for job training and it
will have no funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance which
serves 51,000 needy seniors in New Jersey.
And yet Republicans can find the resources to fund Agriculture
subsidies for wealthy farmers and to fund B-2 bombers that the Defense
Department didn't even want?
I have a clear image of this brave new world which Republicans seek.
It has nothing to do with balancing the budget and it has nothing to do
with making a better America for the working poor, our children, our
young people or our seniors. Clearly it is designed to be a world where
the rich and privileged will be free to prosper without the nagging and
nettlesome problem of caring for their less fortunate brothers and
sisters.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong opposition to
the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, because it will result in very real
damage to very real students and teachers in real schools in
communities throughout this country.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, the education policy in this
bill is based on two somewhat conflicting assumptions. First, that
because the national contribution to education funding is so small that
it does not matter and will not be missed; second, that the national
role in education is too large and too intrusive and needs to be scaled
back.
Mr. Chairman, these assumptions are both wrong. These assumptions
dishonor decades of bipartisan cooperation over education policy as a
shared priority.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will seriously erode the long-standing role
that we play on the national level to ensure that educational
opportunities are available to those who have been denied them. Laws
like the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] were
enacted 20 years ago because over 1 million disabled children were
excluded entirely from public schools. Those 1 million disabled
children now have a chance to realize their full potential and
contribute to American society because of what Congress did then.
Mr. Chairman, ask the parents of Caitlin Cody, who live in my
community. Caitlin is a bright 8-year-old with spina bifida who joins
her classmates every day in her neighborhood public school to discover
the joys of learning. They will tell you that in the absence of the
Federal role in education, Caitlin's future would not be as promising
as it is.
Mr. Chairman, this bill cuts IDEA. It cuts funding which will
severely curtail professional development, research, and outreach
activities which are crucial for improving services to children with
disabilities.
This bill also cuts chapter 1 by $1.2 billion. With this cut, over 1
million disadvantaged children across this country will be denied a
chance to succeed. In Flint, MI, which is struggling right now to
regain its economic footing, over 2,800 students will lose vital
academic help. These students will lose the guidance of 47 teachers and
109 teaching aids.
Who are these children and who are their
teachers? Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues the story of one
chapter 1 student. Shelly is a real person who lives right now in my
district. She is not a composite; a real individual person.
Shelly entered middle school in the seventh grade last fall. Shelly
came to school every day, because there she could get a meal. Then her
teachers discovered that Shelly lived with her mother and younger
brother right in my neighborhood, wherever they could find a place to
stay at night. They had been evicted from their apartment and stayed in
a shelter or with friends.
When Shelly moved to Michigan, she was identified as a chapter 1
student. Shelly's teacher recognized that she needed the stability of a
regular classroom and instead of pulling her away from her peers, she
provided Shelly with reading support services in her science and social
studies classes.
As the year progressed, because of this program, Shelly's life
improved and her teacher made connections to mentors and helped find a
place for her to live because this teacher believed in Shelly's
potential.
Shelly entered middle school as a homeless child. She finished the
year as an honor student.
Mr. Chairman, we should not take opportunities away from the
Caitlin's and the Shelly's to finance a tax cut for the very, very
rich.
[[Page H 8335]]
Vote ``no'' on this.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I especially commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], my chairman, for his outstanding statement
a few moments ago in which he gave a clear rebuttal for the mindless
political rhetoric, that we hear over and over again, in which the
opponents of this bill recite like a mantra the phrase ``tax breaks for
the wealthiest in our society.''
Mr. Chairman, are the wealthiest in our society like that couple in
my district that makes $25,000 a year with two children who are going
to find, with the $500 per child tax credit, that their Federal tax
liability will be eliminated altogether? Or like my wealthy friends,
the grandmother and the grandfather who have worked for 30 years on a
farm in northwest Arkansas and as they reach retirement age and want to
move in town, to get close to quality health care, discover they cannot
afford to sell their farm because of exorbitant capital gains tax
rates?
Mr. Chairman, yes, these are the wealthy friends that we want to help
in our society.
My colleague says that, yes, 90 percent of the American people
support higher investment in education. I believe that. I believe my
constituents do. But they want to invest it where it will work and it
will work when we invest that money locally, not when we invest it in
more Federal spending on education.
Mr. Chairman, Americans last November rejected the ``government-
knows-best'' philosophy that has held sway for far too long.
Goals 2000, which we defund in this appropriation bill, is a
manifestation of that very failed philosophy. What Goals 2000 does is
lay the groundwork for all future Federal experimentation with
education, which takes control away from parents and local school
districts where it belongs.
It increases the Federal role by imposing a congressional formula for
reform on any State, school district, or local school that wishes to
receive funding under the act.
{time} 1300
Only 40 percent of the money appropriated for Goals 2000 ever reaches
the schools. The other 60 percent constitutes the bureaucratic skim
that is being used at each level to create the new framework for the
educational system.
The American people did not buy into the misguided idea of national
health boards in the last Congress, and they do not want national
school boards. If the past 30 years have taught us anything, it is that
national solutions do not solve local problems.
It is amazing to me my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can
stand and defend the status quo. The past three decades, American
taxpayers have been pouring money into the public school system with
almost no encouraging signs that this money is buying better education
for our children.
Who knows best what children need but their parents and people who
are in contact with them every day? This appropriation bill begins to
put the focus back upon the local schools, empowering parents to
control the education of their children.
There were originally six national goals that were developed in 1989,
hand in hand with the States, but they now have been increased to
eight. The two additional goals differ from the States' original
intentions, leading us even further away from the direction that
education in this country should be taking, which is back to the
parents.
We can, in defunding Goals 2000, as we do in this appropriations
bill, we can take a decisive first step in returning education to the
State and to the local school boards and empowering parents to
participate and to control the education of their children.
I urge support of this Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Sawyer], a distinguished member of the authorizing committee.
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to join
with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but with some regret, to
oppose the passage of this bill.
The work that we do today, the work that has preceded us over the
last decade really emphasizes a singular important message, and that is
that today's graduates have got to be prepared to enter a world of
profound and constant change. The people of this Nation are moving more
rapidly across and within this Nation than we have for 100 years, and
all of today's children simply must be able to graduate equipped with
skills that are not just technologically adaptable to a variety of
different employment situations across the United States, but which
also will make them intellectually flexible.
Now, our colleagues have suggested that somehow this is not a
national problem. The truth of the matter is that education has always
been a local function and a State responsibility, but today, my
colleagues, it is an overarching national concern. Education from the
national level is not a matter of federalizing education at all. It is
not even a matter of directing education, but it is recognizing that if
we are to be successful, we must connect education all across this
country, 50 million students, 2.5 million faculty, 15,000 school
districts in diverse communities all across this country, as diverse as
Missoula, MT, or Meridian, MS, or all of the metropolitan areas of this
Nation. The children have got to be equipped to be competitive and to
contribute to this Nation's capacity.
Education is, indeed, a national priority, nowhere more so than in
recognizing that the expectations that we have for these children have
vastly outstripped the ability of some schools to keep pace. We have
got to elevate the expectations of our schools, of our teachers and our
children, and in that sense what we do here today or ought to be doing
here today is to provide the connective tissue, the ability to improve
and elevate a curriculum, not to be forced upon local schools, not to
be adopted, but to be adapted throughout this country to local need. We
have got to recognize that in a 30-year career, a teacher who began
with certification that may have been perfectly sufficient in 1960 is
no longer suitable to the kind of change that has been undertaken in
this world and in this Nation in the 30 intervening years.
We need to have the capacity to share that improved curriculum, that
improved professional development all across this country. I have to
tell you I do not think that anybody ever said it better than Allen
Wertzel, vice chairman of Circuit City, who agreed that growing
businesses need students to graduate with higher skills. He said,
``High academic expectations in schools is probably the single most
important component of education reform.''
Drawing this Nation together in that capacity is our single highest
priority.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Education Research Statistics and
Improvement account within the Department of Education there is an
interest among a number of House Members to provide funding of about
$300,000 within the total provided to not less than two institutions to
support programs utilizing innovative technologies and practices for
the professional development and training of teachers in music
education. Is it correct to say that the House report accompanying the
Labor-HHS fiscal year 1996 bill speaks favorably, but with less
specificity, to music education and its impact on learning?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLEMENT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We
attempted to economize on verbiage where we could in preparing the
committee report.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, the bill will shortly be considered by the
other body. If, during that consideration, the other body includes more
specific language regarding music education, could I have the
chairman's assurance that the House conferees would carefully consider
the generic direction
[[Page H 8336]]
for these funds in light of my favorable recommendation to accept the
more specific allocations of funds for music education programs?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman from
Tennessee that the House conferees will keep your recommendation in
mind when we address this issue in conference.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support on
this issue.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Well, we hear the Republicans say they want to balance the budget and
that is why we are cutting so dramatically into education programs.
Well, do we want to balance the budget?
We are cutting about $450 million out of two programs very important
to our children: Safe and Drug Free Schools, which makes sure we try to
protect our children as they go to school so they do not have to worry
about drug dealers on the corner trying to sell them drugs or the gang
violence they may encounter on the way to school; Special Education,
$174 million is being cut out of that program for our kids who are
disabled, who need a little bit of extra attention so they can succeed
with their peers.
On the other hand, we put $500 million extra into the defense budget
which was not even requested by the Department of Defense for new
spending on barracks and other pork that the Pentagon, as I said, never
requested, and all of it targeted to 26 of the 31 States represented by
the people who sit on the Committee on Appropriations.
Cut in education: $1.2 billion in our title I program that helps kids
that are behind in their reading and in their sciences learning. What
is not cut? Well, we see on the Senate side the Armed Services wants to
spend $1.3 billion for an amphibious assault ship that the Navy says is
does not even want. Cut in education: $55 million for a school-to-work
program which helps our kids have abilities once they get out of
school. What is not cut? Well, $42 million, that is the amount the
Committee on Appropriations preserved in taxpayer subsidies for tobacco
growers.
We are talking about balancing the budget? At the same time that we
hear that we must cut the $4 billion out of education to balance a $5
trillion debt and an annual deficit of about $200 billion, we find that
the Defense Department got $8 billion more than it even asked for, and
we find that the Republicans are trying to spend about $300 billion on
tax cuts over 7 years.
That is not the way to go. We do not need to cut $4 billion out of
education when it is so dramatic and so needed.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I take strong exception to the unconscionable
cuts in this bill for the Safe and Drug Free School zones.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman form
California [Mr. Miller], one of the ranking members of the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities, former chairman of the
Children's Task Force.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me and for adding to my resume here.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, these cuts in education are
deep, and they are serious, and they are real, and they are going to
have an impact in each and every one of our districts.
Because let us understand something, they are not cutting this money
to give it back to the schools at the local level. They are cutting
this money to provide for a tax cut, the overwhelming benefit of which
goes to people earning in excess of $200,000 a year. So they are
gathering up money from poor schools, from poor children, from
handicapped children, from all of the school districts in the country
and transferring that to the wealthiest people in the country. That is
simply not fair, and it does not make sense.
Let us understand that these Federal dollars are what allows these
school districts to engage in teacher training, to provide inservice
training for teachers, to move toward 21st century technologies for
many of our school districts that have no ability to do that. They do
not have the financial capability of doing that.
These Federal dollars are what allows school districts to take care
of the neediest, the poorest children in our society, because they do
not have the capability of doing it without these dollars.
Let us understand something. We hear time and time again about the
inability of the local school board and the local school district. Let
me explain to you that many of those school districts are bringing you
today the abysmal education that America's children are reaching. And
why? Because they do not do these activities without Federal help. They
were not educating the poorest children in this country without Federal
help. They were not educating handicapped children without Federal
help. They were not providing teacher training without Federal help,
and it is very likely they will not again if the Federal Government
does not help them out.
So understand the Federal Government is a catalyst for education
programs. Goals 2000 is a catalyst to make the States, and to help
them, finance world-class standards for our children so that our
children can compete with the children of any country in the world in
the future.
Today they cannot. They cannot compete in math. They cannot compete
in language skills. They cannot compete in critical thinking. It is a
national disgrace, and these few Federal dollars, very, very important
to meeting those goals, because in fact in my own district and many
other districts, without these moneys, those efforts will go by the
wayside and we will continue to see children graduated who cannot read
their diploma. We will continue to see children passed on to the next
grade who cannot read at grade level.
This is that opportunity. But this is the opportunity that the
Republican budget cuts would deny our school districts. This is a
disinvestment, a disinvestment in the children of this Nation, in the
education of this Nation and their ability to participate in the world
economy of the future.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Bunn], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy
with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter].
Mr. Chairman, I understand the great fiscal pressure under which the
chairman put together his appropriations bill. I applaud his efforts to
make this a fair bill, not only for the taxpayers of the country but
also by addressing the out-of-control spending that is costing our
children their future earnings.
With that in mind, I would like to address the level of the general
strengthening institutions program, title III(A) of the Education Act.
I am concerned that the current funding level of the program will not
allow the Federal Government to fully fund continuing multiyear grants.
Under the administration's request, the title III grants will be phased
out over 2 years, with public community colleges cut out of the system
immediately.
{time} 1315
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. As the gentleman knows, I offered an amendment
during the full committee to partially restore the necessary funding to
the title III program. But due to the tight constraints that we are
working under, we were unable to find adequate funding for the program.
I ask the subcommittee chairman if the other body does find a way to
more fully fund the title III section A program, if there is a way to
consent to the other body's funding level?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H 8337]]
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the level of funding in
our bill would perhaps create financial difficulties for many of the
institutions that have relied on this funding in the past and I will
work with the members of the conference in the other body to achieve a
higher level of funding of transition funding for this program than was
possible in this bill.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I thank the gentleman and appreciate his efforts
on behalf of community colleges of the Nation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here in absolute dismay at this bill that we
are being asked to vote on today, which decimates the funding for
education throughout the country. This debate is basically a debate of
the disavowal of the majority of our national promise that we would
care, defend, and protect our Nation's children.
Under this camouflage of budget rhetoric, the majority party has
appropriated an appropriations bill that cuts $3.9 billion from our
education programs and dismantles a 30-year record of increasing
support for our children.
I feel betrayed because I always believed the discussions with
respect to our national priority, always put our children on the top.
In discussing our care and compassion for children in this country, we
always pledged our full support to their education.
Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that there are vast differences in our
country, rural, urban America, rich and poor, but we have always said
that the National Government has a responsibility to make sure that no
matter what the circumstances of poverty or whatever the location is in
geography, that the children would be protected and that the assurance
of equal educational opportunity was a solemn pledge and contract that
we made for our children.
This appropriation bill denies that. It takes money away from
children in the poorest of circumstances, children who come from middle
America, who have disabilities, who have difficulties, who come from
troubled circumstances, who have handicaps, who have deficiencies in
learning. The smallest of our children all over the country are going
to be hurt by this budget. I ask this House to vote it down..
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I was on the floor 1\1/2\ hours ago talking
about how this bill is devastating and cutting Head Start children out
of the program when even President Reagan, President Bush, talked about
how much do we increase this bipartisan program that is working. Where
in Michigan City, IN, 80 children are waiting to get into the program,
this bill is going to say to these children, not only can you not get
in, we do not have room for you; we are going to cut more children out
of Head Start. That is what this bill says.
This bill is like a Shakespearean comedy of errors. It is tragically
almost funny. We debated drug-free schools the last few years and I
have joined with my colleagues on the Republican side, many of whom I
have the utmost respect for, and the gentleman from Delaware, Mr.
Castle and I, Mr. Barrett and I proposed amendments to restore Dare and
drug-free school money. This year, we are cutting drug-free school
money by over 50 percent.
Mr. Chairman, it is not that Democrats want the status quo and
Republicans want to balance the budget. I voted for a balanced budget
amendment. I led the efforts to cut a space station that is $80 billion
over budget. I will vote to cut 20 B-2 bombers that the Pentagon
doesn't even want out of the budget. Let us make up our minds what is
important around here.
A recent survey done by the Columbia University Institute asked our
schoolchildren, What is the biggest problem you face in school today?
Is it an algebra equation? They did not say that. Was it a biology
test? No. Was it a gun in a school? No. By a 2-to-1 margin, children in
America today said, we are afraid of drugs in our schools, 2 to 1.
So what are we doing about it? We cut the drug-free school money by
over 50 percent. What does that tell you about our priorities? I want
to move toward a balanced budget. I want to make some of the tough cuts
to move there, but we should do that in a fair and evenhanded manner.
Mr. Chairman, it seems sometimes around here that if you have got a
lobbyist working for you, you are going to do real well. You are going
to maintain the B-2 bomber. You are going to maintain a space station.
You are going to maintain hydrogen programs. But if you are a child, if
you are in a Head Start program, if you are in a drug-free school
program, you are on your own. Good luck.
Mr. Chairman, that is not what the priorities of America should be
about today.
Doris Kerns Goodwin has got a wonderful book and I will have to
continue my review of that wonderful book later.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], an excellent member of our subcommittee.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I think what we need to do is have the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] go talk to the members of the
subcommittee of the Labor-HHS Committee on Appropriations because what
happened one night was that Head Start was made available to have funds
restored to the tune of $161 million. Every member of the subcommittee
who were Democrats voted against Head Start, $161 million.
Those of us who voted for both of those issues said we wanted to put
children first. We wanted Head Start to come first, and those members
on that subcommittee could have taken the argument of the gentleman
from Indiana and said, we want to honor Head Start.
Who did they honor? We honored lawyers in the NLRB, $26 million. The
offer was made to your colleagues, let us give this to Head Start
because we are listening to what you are saying that it is important--
--
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. As the gentleman knows, I am not a member of the
Committee on Appropriations. I did not vote on that particular
appropriations bill as it was going through at 1 or 2 o'clock in the
morning. But certainly we have the ability on the floor today to try to
correct the bill that is kicking 48,000 children off of Head Start, and
I know the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] would love to support
those children.
We do not want to go to places like Michigan City, IN, where 880
children are waiting to get on Head Start, where I only have 35 percent
of my eligible children enrolled, and tell the children there, which
ones are going to get kicked off, I ask the gentleman?
Mr. Chairman, I would not want to be going into Head Start programs
around this country saying, you, you, and you are out of Head Start.
That is not the direction this country should be going in.
Mr. DICKEY. Reclaiming my time, all I am trying to say, for the sake
of the people who might be listening to this conversation, is that your
talking should be to them, not to us. If we had been successful on our
end of the table late that one night for Head Start, we would have $161
million restored.
Not one of your colleagues voted in favor of that because they wanted
to honor things like lawyers, and they wanted to honor the NLRB that is
going out here and causing destruction in our economy and walking over
people who are trying to keep jobs in place so that we can have taxes
so we can have more money for education.
All I am saying is it does not seem proper. It is not right that we
get to the point where we start talking about you all over there, or
you all over there, when we are all trying to help Head Start.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. DICKEY. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. I would just like to engage the gentleman, the Republican
[[Page H 8338]]
gentleman from Arkansas, in a colloquy. He and I worked together on
many issues. This should not be a partisan issue. We have always agreed
in this body to support Head Start and increase funding on Head Start,
whether it was in committee or on the floor.
Now, for the first time, we are kicking children off. How can we work
together to restore that cut, increase Head Start?
Mr. DICKEY. I think what we ought to do is we ought to look from the
standpoint of trying to help the children, rather than trying to make a
political statement. What is unfortunate about this is that $161
million could have been restored to Head Start and it was not because
there were other programs that were preferred over this.
Now, if your colleagues could talk it over and we could talk it over,
then we would not have this partisanship. The partisanship occurred.
All five Democrats voted against Head Start in both of those instances,
and there are two standing right here that will also try to make this a
partisan issue and say that we somehow are at fault for not bringing
Head Start in in the proper funding.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] is my friend and
we work closely together on some things, but so that everybody on the
floor knows what we are talking about, has sought to cut justice for
workers.
We will pursue it further.
Mr. DICKEY. I will be happy to.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly demonstrates our Nation's commitment
to education and to our youth, mostly words but not real resources.
Where a Nation invests its resources indicates its priorities.
Education should be our Nation's priority.
This bill is blindness march toward a balanced budget, without
consideration of the merits of the programs proposed to be cut or
eliminated.
But worse, this bill ignores the pain it will cause to the many
children, youth, and elderly of America. This is a shame.
The Labor-HHS bill is an obstruction to education.
Half of the cuts in the bill--some $4.5 billion--comes from
education.
Fifty thousand disadvantaged children who need a little help in the
beginning of our lives--at the onset of their education--will not get
that help. Head start is cut by $137 million. Healthy Start is cut by
52 percent.
Thousands of needy school children, in my congressional districts
during their most important educational and formative years, will be
without vital support. Title I is cut by $1.1 billion. Drug-free
schools is cut by 59 percent. The Goals 2000 Program is eliminated,
and, vocational education is cut by 27 percent.
And, thousands of those school children, willing to work, who have
found hoe in a mountain of hopelessness, will not be able to work. The
School-to-Work Program is cut by 22 percent. And, worse, the Summer
Jobs program is terminated.
The privilege of an education belongs to all in America. Many have
toiled long and hard to achieve that aim.
The Labor-HHS appropriations bill, with the stroke of a pen, takes
that privilege away.
The deep and irresponsible cuts in education are made worse by other
cuts in this bill.
In fact, more than 170 programs are eliminated by the kind of slicing
and carving undertaken in this bill, like nothing we have ever seen
before in the history of this Nation.
Even the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] is
eliminated.
This bill says to young people in America, ``You have no future'' and
to seniors, ``You have no past.''
Mr. Chairman. I am at a loss.
Critical programs are being cut--programs that have served our
citizens well--and, the savings will go to increasing the wealth of the
wealthy.
Mr. Chairman, our colleagues tell us that this bill and others puts
us on the glide to a balanced budget.
To balance, however, means to steady. Steadiness promotes stability.
Stability promotes security. And, security is what every American
seeks.
This bill gives us neither steadiness, nor stability, nor security.
It is not good for this Nation. It should give us shame.
Vote ``No'' on this bill.
{time} 1330
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the authorizing committee.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] for yielding this time to me.
This morning in the Committee on the Budget we had the opportunity to
have what I thought would be a good dialog and debate about much of
what has been going on here on the floor today, a discussion and a
debate about what our policy agenda is on both sides of the aisle as
the President and as the majority here in the House both strive to
reach for a balanced budget. But then it became very, very clear that
the two sides are playing with a different set of rules. The Republican
plan scored under this Congressional Budget Office does within 7 years
get to a balanced budget. The President's plan scored under the same
rules, however, enables the president to have $200 billion more per
year to spend.
So, as we are talking about how are we going to achieve and what
policies are we going to implement to achieve a balanced budget, we are
finding that one side is playing with one hand tied behind their back.
One side actually gets to a balanced budget, the other side can
continue going around the country and can continue going around to
special interest groups promising a whole set of programs and
priorities and spending that really does not exist and that totals out
to about $200 billion.
We also find that the other side is really trying to perpetuate a
program and a philosophy that over many years we know does not work,
and this book here, ``Reviving the American Dream,'' written by Alice
Rivlin, who is the head of the Office of Management and Budget,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, she highlights the
failed policies that in many cases we are finding are being debated in
this bill. Here is what she said about education, and remember this
person works for the President:
Improving education will take bottom-up reform,
Presidential speeches and photo opportunities, national
testing and assessment, federally funded experimental
schools. Even new grants spent in accordance with Federal
guidelines can make only marginal contributions in fixing the
schools. The popular Federal Head Start Program demonstrates
that preschool education helps children from poor families
cope better in school. The negative legacy of Head Start,
however, is that States and communities have come to believe
that the responsibilities for preschool education lie with
Washington, not with them. Change would come more rapidly if
concerned citizens, parents, and educators worked to improve
their own preschools instead of lobbying Washington to
allocate more funds for Head Start.
Mr. Chairman, she goes on to say that top-down management by the
Federal Government is unlikely to bring about needed change in
education, skilled training, and other areas where reform is essential.
She also goes on to state that when these programs and responsibility
for these programs are moved from the Federal Government to the State
government, we will see more action, more effectiveness, and better
results.
This is coming from the administration.
All of what we are seeing here debated from the other side is a
continuation of pushing policies and programs that we have had for too
long and that we know do not work. Let us embrace the future, let us
move to a balanced budget, and let us move to move decisionmaking where
it is most appropriate.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
(Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, vigorous
opposition to this bill and title III, and I rise today to protest the
[[Page H 8339]]
shortsighted cuts included in this mean-spirited bill. In an effort to
frantically balance the budget on the backs of poor and middle income
families, Republicans have completely lost sight of those important,
cost-effective programs which work well.
One such program is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
This program is not welfare. Each State participates in this program.
It reaches more than 5.8 million people nationwide. Last year, the
average benefit for the 452,000 recipients in my home State of North
Carolina was $91. Seventy-nine percent of these recipients have an
average income of less than $8,000. In many cases this was the safety
net that kept the poor and elderly from being cold or freezing to
death.
Who are these people, you might ask. In North Carolina, almost 64,000
households have recipients over the age of 60. Almost 60,000 households
have recipients who are children under the age of six. And over 36,000
households have recipients who are disabled. How can we expect these
people, whose annual income is less than the poverty level, to survive
these vicious cuts?
These cuts border on being criminal, Mr. Chairman. If they're not
criminal, they're certainly irresponsible. We should not penalize these
people because they are poor. Yet that is exactly what we are going to
do by passing this mean-spirited bill.
In this body, we have a tendency to get caught up in arguing over
numbers and lose sight of the people whose lives depend upon these
programs. This program is a success. Let's not let the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program become another victim in the Republican
numbers game. This program will not break the Government but it will
break the little comfort and will of the 452,000 recipients in my State
who depend on this program.
I urge every Member of this House to reject this bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Philadelphia, PA [Mr. Foglietta].
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
vote against this shortsighted, hard-hearted Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill. As chairman of the Congressional Urban Caucus, I
tell you that this bill is the most antiurban, Government act since
President Ford told New York City to drop dead. It is antifamily.
Antichild. Antisenior. Antieducation.
Our constituents sent us to Congress to make choices on their behalf.
Sometimes they are tough choices. But the choices made in this bill are
nothing but harsh, mean, and cruel. The education title demonstrates
this vividly.
Last week, this Congress protected Gallo Wine's welfare program--
giving them tax dollars to market their wine to the French.
But today, we vote to send our kids to school to fend for their
lives--on their own--against guns and drugs. The French get Gallo wine,
while our children risk their lives in schoolyards. Bad choice.
Time and time again, this Congress spares the space station from
extinction. But today, we'll cut vocational skills programs for youths
who will never make it to college. We'll build shelter in space, but
leave our young people little or no job opportunity at home. Bad
choice.
This Congress spends billions to build B-2 bombers that we don't
need. The cold war is over. Yet today, we'll vote to cut Head Start.
Thus, we're making fat-cat defense contractors fatter, while Head Start
turns into a no start. Bad choice.
This is a lesson in poor choices. Wrong choices. The best thing--the
only thing--we can do is throw this bill out and try again. Again, I
urge my colleagues to vote a resounding ``no'' against this
legislation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson], one of the whips on the Democratic side who
has done such extraordinary work internationally.
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill. The
education cuts in it are devastating for the country and for my State.
In one school district where 60 percent of the students beginning
school do not speak English, these cuts mean that 6,000 students will
not understand what is being taught.
Bilingual education programs teach students like Elisa, who started
the 2d grade not able to speak one word of English. Last year Elisa
walked across the stage as the valedictorian of her 1,200 member
graduating class.
Impact aid funds provide a kindergarten for Gallup-McKinley County
School District. The cuts contained in this bill mean 300 children will
not go to kindergarten.
Clovis municipal school system will lose a school counselor who works
with children who are at risk of drug and alcohol abuse.
The Belen School District has over 1,700 children who need reading
and math help. With cuts to chapter 1 funding, the school district will
have to choose which lucky 400 students out of 1,700 will get the help
they need.
Mr. Speaker I cannot go back to my district and look into the faces
of children and explain to them that I voted to eliminate their chance
to go to college, stay away from drugs and violence, and improve their
reading and math skills.
Vote against this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a shame that this
debate constantly veers away from the true issue for which we are here
in Congress and here today. We are currently facing one of the most
important moral and economic challenges of our time, to balance the
Federal budget. For too long the Federal Government has lived beyond
its means, and our problem in getting this budget into balance is
spending. We have got to cut the spending side. President Reagan said
the problem we had was not that we are taxed too little, we spend too
much. We must cut spending and control the spending in order to balance
our budget.
Mr. Chairman, due to this gluttonous behavior here is what we are
facing today. The national debt is almost $5 trillion. What are the
practical implications of this? In just 2 years the Federal Government
will pay more for interest on the debt than we pay for national
defense. Think about that. What does that say of our national
priorities?
If we had adopted the President's budget proposal, the amount U.S.
taxpayers will pay in taxes over the next 11 years for interest would
have equaled the entire debt we have today. This is a kind of out-of-
control spending, without regard to consequences. That spending must be
under control now.
The Democrats cannot believe that we are only going to spend $60
billion, over $60 billion in this program. We are spending over $60
billion in this one appropriation bill for the discretionary programs
alone. ``Why would Republicans want to make cuts in Federal spending,''
the frustrated minority keeps asking. Here is the answer:
Next year we are going to spend $235 billion for interest on the
national debt. That is four times what we are spending on this bill,
four times more then we are going to spend on interest on the national
debt, and we keep wanting to increase it.
Someone said, ``What is our priority of spending?'' A Member on the
other side was asking, ``What is our priority of spending? Where do we
rate priorities?'' Well, if we just want to keep spending, spending,
spending, our priority must be more interest on the national debt. We
are overspending this year by $670 for every man, woman, and child in
the United States, and that just adds to our national debt, and that
increases our interest that we are going to pay.
Now I am a big supporter of education. I am a former college
professor. My son just graduated from college. My daughter is just
getting ready to start graduate school, getting a master's in social
work, by the way. So I feel very strongly about the need for education,
but education is primarily a local, State, and family matter. Ninety-
five percent of the money for elementary and secondary education comes
from the State and local government, not the Federal Government.
Unfortunately for the 5 percent of money the Federal Government
provides, we get all the bureaucracy, all the regulations that are
imposed in our local schools.
In 1950 the average family sent 5 percent of their wages to
Washington. Today, with a bloated Federal Government, we are sending 24
percent of our
[[Page H 8340]]
money to the Federal Government. We are not spending 24 percent of our
incomes for Federal Government. We cannot continue doing it. What will
be the best thing we can do for our children today is to not continue
to fund these duplicative wasteful programs and the huge bureaucracy in
the Department of Education. Let us prioritize our spending.
Before the Democrats stand up again and rant and rave about
Republicans, just stop and think for a moment that we are going to
spend four times as much in interest for the national debt than we are
going to spend for the Department of Labor, the Department of HHS, the
Department of Education. That's the disgrace that we must stop.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons to vote against this Labor-HHS
bill, but this education title is just an abomination. It cuts $3.7
billion from last year's education budget, a 14-percent decrease, and
it is $5.2 billion less than the Clinton administration requests for an
investment in our children.
The sad thing is to hear our colleagues come to this floor and say we
have to cut the education of our children to balance the budget. I ask
my colleagues, ``Don't you know by now you're never going to be able to
balance the budget unless we invest in our children, unless we give
them personal opportunity, unless we give them the earning power, the
education to achieve the earning power to contribute to the
competitiveness of our country?'' So balancing the budget is tied to
investing in our children. Any family can tell us that.
Their protestations about balancing the budget ring hollow in light
of the fact that they are cutting education for children in order to
give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. They tried trickle down
once. It didn't work then, and it will not work now. Vote ``no'' on
this bad bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
{time} 1345
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland
for his kindness and his leadership.
First, Mr. Chairman, we begin to eliminate good health for our
children, and then we go on and put the nail in the coffin by taking
away the dollars for their education.
What we are doing today with the Labor-HHS bill is simply saying that
we are taking $266 million from the safe and drug-free schools program,
we are taking some $174 million from our special education program,
$325 million from our vocational and adult education program and $701
million from student financial assistance.
Let me talk about special education, and that is special. It is for
our special children, not our children that we have given up on. It is
the child that needs an extra helping hand, the child that can be a
successful contributor to this society and yet today we find that this
legislation is undermining that child's opportunity to get an
education.
And what about vocational and adult training for dislocated workers,
opportunities for them to start anew?
Mr. Chairman, this is not a bill for our future. It is one that nails
the coffin shut on the lives of Americans. I oppose the major cuts in
this legislation in vital health and education services, that Americans
need and deserve.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss a few key points on
higher education that are contained in this bill.
First let me say this. In a perfect world, a world without these
enormous deficits as far as the eye can see, it would be nice for us to
consider providing additional support to our Nation's college students.
They hold the future of the Nation in their hands, and they deserve our
support, all that we are able and can afford to give.
However, this is not a perfect world. Given our current fiscal
environment we have one overriding issue we must focus on over and over
above all others, and that is reducing the Federal deficit. Given this
priority, this is a bill that does the best it can for higher
education. This is a bill that does a number of important things for
higher education, such as providing the highest maximum Pell grant in
the history of the program. It saves important campus-based programs
such as work study and SEOG. It restricts the Department of Education's
ability to spend wastefully on its gold-plated direct loan program by
eliminating its ability to spend on lavish trips for bureaucrats and
campaign ads for the President.
These key items as well as other key education reforms that my
subcommittee is considering provide important supporting to higher
education. Because of the fiscal realities we are facing, the time is
now to bring much-needed focus to Federal higher education programs.
This bill does what it needs to do. It puts us on a path toward a
balanced budget while at the same time supporting key higher education
programs for young Americans.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I bring today to the floor this shirt which
says ``shame.'' It was given out yesterday by people in the labor
movement, but it is just as good to illustrate what we are doing to the
children of America today, for shame.
S is for selling out the children of America, selling them out by
eliminating the safe and drug-free schools program, by a 27-percent cut
in vocational and adult training, $1.2 billion cut from title I, the
Goals 2000 education standards eliminated, 50-percent cut in bilingual
education.
H is for Head Start, which will lose more than $137 million when we
sacrifice our future.
A is for the aged, which will have to choose between food and heat
when we destroy their low-income home energy assistance program.
M is for mean spirited, which is what these attacks on the most
vulnerable in our society are.
E is for enough, enough of taking from working people, the aged, our
children, to pay for the Republican tax cuts for the rich, these same
people who gained the most from the trickle-down years.
Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for this institution, and it is a sad
day for America. It has been said that we should be judged by how we
treat those who are least able to defend themselves. By that standard,
our Republican friends should feel nothing but shame for what they are
about to do.
This is the worst bill I have seen in my 7 years in Congress, and it
should be soundly defeated. Shame on all of us if we pass this bill.
Shame on what we are doing to the children of America, to the working
people of America and to the elderly of America, all to pay for a tax
cut for the rich. Shame.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], my colleague from the subcommittee.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I think those who oppose this bill should
be ashamed of themselves for working off of a fallacy and a myth in
this country that somehow throwing money at an educational problem is
going to solve it.
I do not need a lecture from anyone in this Chamber about what it is
like to grow up in a low-income neighborhood. I did such a thing. I
went to a high school that had a 50-percent dropout rate where, when I
started high school in south San Antonio, all of the teachers quit
because of the mess that the school board was involved in at the time.
And you know what made a difference in me finishing school? It was
not a government program. It was the fact that my parents cared enough
to get involved in my education, to show up at the after-school
projects and some of the events that we held in the evenings to promote
education. It was not because someone threw a bunch of money at us and
suddenly decided that they were going to help me graduate.
[[Page H 8341]]
The problem with education in this country is that the parental
responsibility is broken down in neighborhoods. We need to work at a
grass-roots level, at a civic level like I do, trying to talk to
parents at schools, trying to organize efforts and support efforts in
our local neighborhoods to get parents to be involved in a person's
education.
We only have to look right here in our own backyard, in Washington,
DC, where we spend over $9,000 per capita for each student to put them
through the D.C. school system. What good has that done? They have a
terrible success rate.
It is unfortunate that that has occurred, but it is because adults in
this country have not taken the responsibility upon themselves to get
involved and be responsible for their child's education. It is not
going to matter what we do up here with Federal programs.
There are some that work. We are supporting Head Start. The 190-
percent increase over 5 years, we are for that because it is a program
that works. We are going to help the TRIO program because that works as
well. We are fully funding that this year. We are funding bilingual
education programs to the point where they can be administered in a
transitional way and not allow students to exist on a bilingual program
forever and they never learn to adapt to the English-speaking society
that we have and succeed.
We are also supporting the greatest increase, to refer to this chart,
the greatest increase in history, the greatest increase that is allowed
by law in Pell grants, because this is a program that has helped kids
as well that want to go to college.
So we are trying to preserve the good programs that work in this
country, but do not stand up here and give me a lecture and give us
lectures about what it takes to help people in low-income
neighborhoods. We understand that very well on this side of the aisle,
and we want to continue to support these good programs. Do not stand up
and give us a lecture about what it is like to grow up in a low-income
neighborhood. We understand that very well. So do not act like you
understand it any better than we do.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Understanding it is not enough, I say to my friend, the gentleman
from Texas, you need to act on your understanding, not just talk about
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman
from New York [Mr. Owens].
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, all taxes are local. The Federal money came
from the local level. We pay our income taxes and send them to
Washington.
We need our money back for education. The States and the cities are
not going to be able to take care of the education problems.
Let me just tell you about two schools in my district. Public school
208 in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, is one of them. Nearly 70 percent of
all the children are from low-income families. Most of them are working
poor. The school is overcrowded, filled to 120 percent capacity, with
an average class size of 30. About one-third of the students test below
what the State considers minimum competency in math and reading. If
this bill passes next year, the title I tutoring of 270 of these
children will no longer be there.
Prospect High School is another school in my district. It is 68
percent of students from low-income families. The building is almost 70
years old, in shocking disrepair. Many of the classrooms do not even
have blackboards. There are not even enough chairs in the cafeteria to
seat all the students, so some of them must stand up and eat or they
eat propped up against the wall. Extracurricular activities are
nonexistent. If this bill passes next year, these students will not
have title I programs they need, 1,000 students will miss out on title
I programs.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], the distinguished successor of Silvio Conte,
who would have opposed this bill.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I heard this bill described today as a
careful consideration of priorities and elimination of useless Federal
programs. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not consider education goals for the
year 2000 as useless, nor dropout prevention useless, nor education for
homeless children useless, nor a Teacher Corps useless, nor workplace
literacy useless, and I deplore the cuts in student financial aid and
Head Start for affording 8,000 students and cuts in safe and drug-free
schools.
And as for priorities, Mr. Chairman, the start-up cost for the B-2
bombers, the 20 new B-2 bombers which are unneeded and were not even
asked for by the Pentagon, they would pay for all the costs of all
those cuts in all these education programs that we are talking about
today.
The Republican priorities here are simply wrong. We should kill this
turkey. As the gentleman from Wisconsin had said, we should kill this
turkey of a bill.
{time} 1400
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Gene Green].
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Maryland for yielding me this time. I serve on the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities and am proud to serve there.
Like my colleague from Texas himself, I remember where I come from,
and I remember in 1965 was the first time we received public Federal
education funds at the school that I went to, at Jeff Davis High School
in northside Houston. We did not have audiovisual equipment until we
got that funding.
Nowadays it pays for much more than hardware. It pays for teachers
and better education. That is why I wanted to serve on the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities. I represent a district that the
median income is $20,000, compared to my Republican colleagues which is
double that and more.
If we are going to increase that level of funding for our families,
then we have got to do it with better education. This bill today,
cutting it is wrong. The difference between the Democrats who are
opposed to this bill and the Republicans is that we remember where we
come from and we know what we have to do to provide a better quality of
life for the future of the United States, and that is provide more
education funding.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I sat back in my office and I am watching the rhetoric
on both sides, and I think there are some things that we can actually
work to help some of these things. We have got an amendment, for
example, that is coming up that is going to provide $6 million in
outlays, in which we are going to be able to plus-up the Eisenhower
grants. We talk about we want teachers to be better and our students to
be better. I understand you all are going to accept the amendment,
which is great. This is the kind of thing we need to fight toward, to
work together.
I also feel eventually I would like to take education and would like
to move most of it to the States. We get a very low percentage of the
tax dollars back down to the classroom. A lot of it is eaten up with
the in-between in the bureaucracy. I think it is better off down there.
But in the meantime, what we need to take a look at is, while we are
doing this, education is front loaded. It is forward funded. And unless
we provide some transportation or some in-between time to do that, we
are going to actually damage some of the things that we need to do.
We are going to provide the money for Eisenhower grants. We are going
to provide the money to help impact aid for B's and B's. We are going
to take some of the money, over $100 million, and put back into other
programs, in job training for students. These are the kinds of things
that I would hope my colleagues would focus on.
Yes, I think in some places we have probably gone a little too far.
Let us work together and bring it back in line. Let us work at it,
instead of just firing rockets at each other all day long.
[[Page H 8342]]
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam
[Mr. Underwood].
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, we are engaged in a great debate of priorities on this
floor and it is a necessary debate. We have been told by the other side
that we are establishing priorities with this appropriation, that this
is the basic purpose here--we want to create the glide path to a
balanced budget.
Nothing could be truer and it is abundantly clear that the priorities
of the other side do not include children, the priorities of the other
side do not include programs which will help our young people take
advantage of economic opportunities, become more competitive in the
world market, in short, become educated. The priorities of the other
side do not include education, planning for it, using it as a basis to
expand opportunity for the most vulnerable in our society.
The other side has made the comparison to doing our own family budget
and that we must get our own Nation in order in the way we get our own
home in order. Well based on what the other side has come up with, we
have a family budget which has invested in burglar alarms at the
expense of school books, a family budget which has invested in military
toys instead of computers and a family budget which guarantees that
your rich uncle will be getting more in the future than your retired
grandmother.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes], a senior Member of our body and a member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, we need to be up front in telling the American people
what this bill does to the education of the Nation's children. We need
to tell parents how this bill threatens the quality of their children's
education, their school safety, and their future career opportunities.
And, while we are doing this, let's be mindful that everyday parents
across-the-country are telling their children to study hard, get a good
education, and you will be a success.
Parents need to know that the Republicans on the committee voted
against amendment after amendment to even partially restore funding to
critical education programs. Even as we meet here today, the
Republicans have said that these cuts are meaningless.
Well, I do not think that the parents of the 1 million children that
will be denied title-I assisted learning in reading and math will find
the over $1 billion cut in title-I meaningless. I do not think that
parents who are concerned about drugs and crime in their community's
schools will find the $266 million cut in safe and drug free schools
meaningless.
Mr. Chairman, our children should not be forced to pay for a tax cut
for the wealthy. Let's not deny our children their chance to achieve
the American dream. For the children's sake, I ask my colleagues to
vote against H.R. 2127.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the
Republican Conference, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for the fine job that he had done and for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues that have been about watching this
debate over the last several days and to people whom I am sure have
been watching it, probably wondering why all of this rancorous debate,
why all of this strife. A lot of people might call it partisan
bickering, yelling at one another. But what is really going on here I
think we all understand is a very serious debate about what the
appropriate role of the Federal Government here in Washington is today.
Now, last November the American people, I think, made a big decision.
They sent this town a very serious message, that they want government
in Washington to be smaller, less costly, and less intrusive into their
lives.
While they said that, they sent a new Congress here to change the way
Washington does its business. Probably our largest priority is to
actually put forward, and we are going to pass, a plan that will
actually balance the Federal budget here in Washington. As we do that,
we are going to reinvent government here in Washington and reinvent the
role of government here in Washington.
I am surprised as I listen to some of the debate from my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, that they think that compassion ends at
the outer edges of the beltway in Washington, that our States and local
communities, that parents do not really care about what happens to
their children's future.
Well, they do.
Another point I would make is that as we redesign this Government and
shrink this Government, what we are going to do is save the future for
our children and theirs. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle who have designed these 240 Federal education programs, what good
it really does for our children and theirs if we are going to have
these programs, but we are going to let them pay for them over the next
40, 50, 60 years, because all it is doing is adding to the national
debt?
How fair is that? The fact is I think we can go a lot further moving
these programs back.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee, in a brief colloquy if I may.
Chairman Porter, I greatly appreciate your taking the time to talk
with me about my concerns over the 40-percent cut made in the budget of
the American Printing House for the Blind. As you know, the American
Printing House is located in my district, in Louisville, KY, and
carries out the mandate of the 1879 Act of Congress to promote the
education of the blind.
Over these many years, the American Printing House has produced and
distributed special educational materials to legally blind students
enrolled in pre-college programs. In fact, I understand that the Hadley
School for the Blind in your district utilizes American Printing House
materials.
Mr. Chairman, the 1995 budget last year provided $107 per youngster
for a total of $6.6 million in the budget. The cut in this bill would
have a very detrimental effect on the ability of the American Printing
House to carry out its vital mission. If the cut proposed becomes
final, legally blind students in every State will have less access to
the educational aides that are produced only at the Printing House for
the Blind.
Mr. Chairman, I know you share my concern for these young people.
When the House goes to conference with the other body, I would be most
grateful for any held you can give to restore the necessary funding for
the American Printing House for the Blind.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WARD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very well acquainted with the work of
the American Printing House for the Blind, both through the Hadley
School and through my work on the subcommittee. I do share the
gentleman from Kentucky's interest in providing for the educational
needs obviously of blind people. In conference I will do all I can to
increase the amount of funding for the American Printing House.
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, on behalf of
all those people at the American Printing House for the Blind, for his
assistance.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak very briefly about three
areas of concern that I have. I think, first of all, it is probably not
the end of the world that we are making some cuts in education. I think
we can probably live with some of that. But there are areas about which
I am concerned.
[[Page H 8343]]
I believe the goals panel, the national goals panel is a very, very
important step we should reinstate. I am talking about $3 million or
some relatively small amount of money. But those goals are not
standards, they are not telling anybody how to do anything, they are
goals that we need to reach by the year 2000 and I do not think we are
doing it.
I would hope at some point as this goes through the Senate and goes
through conference, we will look at the safe and drug-free schools, and
hopefully we can restore that money, because I think that program has
worked so significantly well.
Also, if there is anything left over, I think that the chapter 1
program has by and large worked effectively in the United States of
America. I realize that we have to make the cuts, and I realize we are
going to have to make a lot of tough decisions, but I also believe
these are programs we should look at.
So I would urge all of us as we continue this to take a look at those
particular programs.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we started this debate talking about opportunity, and
that all of us on this floor, I believe, are for an opportunity
society, and that, generally speaking, our constituents believe that
opportunity's door is through the schoolhouse.
The schoolhouse door is the door that has given most Americans the
opportunity to better themselves, prepare themselves for the workplace,
prepare themselves to be responsible, participating citizens. Yes,
taxpaying citizens of our country who wanted to participate in making
America great, they have done so.
We have then talked about, however, the deficit, and how the deficit
is of great concern to all of us. I want to tell again my friends that
I voted for the balanced budget amendment. I voted for the Stenholm
amendment, which would balance the budget in 7 years. I did not vote,
however, for a large tax cut in the face of large deficits. It clearly
does not make sense, because we need to get the deficit down first.
The only reason I continue to suggest that we need to make these
draconian cuts in education, in shortchanging the children of America,
is because of the necessity of the Republican side to get to some
numbers caused by their very significant tax cut of $245 billion.
Now, someone said oh, yes, but that is distributed evenly throughout
middle American the middle class, and the rich were not getting rich,
and it was unfair of us to say we were taking $9 billion from children
and putting that $9 billion, just a portion of the $245 billion, over
here for a tax cut for the wealthy.
My friends, here is the distribution: Here is the distribution of the
tax cut. On the far right you have the bottom 20 percent, then the
second 20 percent, the third, the fourth, and the top 20 percent. But
then, my friends, you have the top 1 percent, and the tax cut they get.
Now, I suggest if somebody says this is factually incorrect, I am
sure they will correct me. But I am sure that I will not be corrected,
because this is the accurate depiction of what your tax cut will result
in and that is the distribution.
{time} 1415
Twenty thousand dollars that everybody in the top 1 percent will get
is being taken from Head Start children, chapter 1 children, student
loan children, energy assistance, from this bill.
Now, an additional argument that was made was, it all ought not to be
in Washington. We agree with that. As a matter of fact, we agree very
much that it ought to be local people, local school systems, local
parents, local teachers that become engaged in how to make the
education of our children better and more effective.
That is why only 2 percent, only 2 percent of the money in this bill
for education is kept in Washington; 98 percent, out to students, goes
out to State school systems and local school systems. Hear me now, 98
percent. That is not a bureaucracy in Washington being made fat. That
is Washington trying to make sure that, as a nation, these are not just
Maryland students and California students and Maine students and
Florida students. These are Americans who will participate in the
future in making America great. That is why we who represent all of the
American people direct ourselves to this program.
It is $3.8 billion cut in education in this bill, again, I suggest to
you, made necessary not by budget deficit reduction but by the $245
billion in the tax cut. You have to get it from somewhere, and the kids
are here, and that is where you are getting it.
Now, title I, 1 million students are being cut out. Safe and drug-
free schools, 60 percent is being cut. I frankly do not have any of my
constituents come up to me and say, hey, we have accomplished our
objective. We have safe schools, no violence in them, no drugs in them;
we do not need to make the effort anymore. They do not believe that. We
still have a very virulent cancer on our community, and it is drugs and
violence in our schools. We need to help.
We are not the sole answer, but we need to help our local school
systems, Goals 2000. The former Governor of Delaware rose and said this
is a good program. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] came up
and said, the macroobjective of bringing the deficit down is excellent.
I disagree with that. But the micromethod you have undertaken on your
side of the aisle, he said, Republicans, you are wrong. That was Mr.
Gunderson from Wisconsin, not the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer.
Under the Reagan-Bush 12 years, we quadrupled the budget. Let me say
to my Republican friends again, not one red cent was spent in America
from 1981 to 1993 that Ronald Reagan and George Bush did not sign off
on. They could have stopped any and all funding in its tracks. They did
not do that. They chose to endorse the priorities that were sent to
them.
This President, by the way, is not going to do that, because he is
right. These priorities stink and he is going to veto this bill. I am
going to support his veto and applaud him in effort. I guarantee you in
my opinion the American public are going to support him, too.
Why? Because over 90 percent of them think, yes, balancing the
deficit is important, but saying to a child, you will not be able to
compete, you will not be able to have a job, you will not be able to
support your family, you will not be able to compete in global economy
but, by the way, you will owe less debt, you think that makes any sense
to them? They will not have a job. They will not care what debt they
owe.
Vote against this cruel cut in education for our children.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, well, here we go again. Once more, my
Democratic colleagues and myself are needing to stand up against the
majority's assaults on poor women, children and the elderly.
Poor women on Medicaid who will be denied good health care for them
and their children. The legislation even undercuts the very successful
healthy short program that give poor children early preventive health
care.
The Head Start program gives millions of American children the
opportunity to start their adolescent and academic development on the
right foot. The Republicans are choosing to reduce funding for this
program. I can envision it now * * * little by little, they will try to
dwindle this program into obscurity as well. We will not stand for
this.
And our poor seniors. What will come of them during this so-called
revolution? We have already seen a glimpse of what the majority wishes
to do to the Medicare program * * * and now, they want not to reduce
funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program, but to
eliminate it!
Houston, a city that experiences extreme temperatures and a high heat
index, needs a program like LIHEAP. I spoke today with the Houston
Harris County Area Agency on Aging about the effects on our seniors if
this program is eliminated. The outlook is not good.
In our most recent Houston heat wave, the city's multi-purpose and
senior centers increased their hours of operation for the emergency
placement of elderly citizens at alternative sites--they needed a
cooler place to stay * * * not only for their health, but for their
safety. This can often be a life or death situation. Swiftly
eliminating a program of such importance is irresponsible legislating.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation which effectively
disregards this Nation's commitment to life, liberty, and equality for
all.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to these unwise and
unwarranted cuts to the future of our country. By cutting funds to
[[Page H 8344]]
student aid programs we are dulling the edge of our Nation's future
competitiveness.
This bill decimates the Perkins Loan Program for our neediest
students. In my district 682 students at Macomb Community College alone
may be forced to leave school.
This bill takes seed money away from the Michigan Competitive
Scholarship Program, which provides college assistance to disadvantaged
students who show unusual academic promise. Isn't academic promise what
we're trying to encourage?
And 250,000 currently-eligible students will be denied a Pell Grant.
This is not progress, this is moving backwards.
Finally, for our youngest kids, Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding is
reduced by more than 50 percent, cutting $9.2 million from my state's
DARE and school-based anti-drug efforts.
Why is this happening? Because Republicans have put a priority on tax
cuts for very wealthy families that just don't need it. These
priorities are backwards and just plain wrong.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate on title III has expired.
Are there amendments to title III?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will take just a moment because the gentleman was
unable to yield to me. I had yielded to a Member on his side as part of
our debate.
I say that sounds wonderful, but with the cuts in this section of the
bill, in education, they amount to exactly three-quarters of 1 percent
of the money spent in education in our country this year, three-
quarters of 1 percent is what these cuts amount to. The sky is not
falling. The sky is not falling.
amendment offered by mr. goodling
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Page 45, line 7, strike
``$1,057,919,000.'' and insert ``$1,062,788,000, of which
$4,869,000 shall be for the National Institute for Literacy;
and''.
Page 49, line 1, strike ``$255,107,000'' and insert
``$250,238,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will be recognized for
10 minutes, and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized
for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today I am offering an amendment to support the continued funding of
the National Institute for Literacy. In my mind, there is no more
effective solution to many of the social ills facing today's society
than ensuring that we have a literate society. Unfortunately, in the
United States of America we do not. A large percentage of our people
have an eighth grade literacy ability.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling amendment
to restore funding for the National Institute for Literacy. We have
done a great deal of work over the last 5 years. It has been in the
best tradition of the bipartisan effort that we have enjoyed for many
years on our committee. Adult literacy problems remain in the forefront
of America's educational and productive economic needs throughout the
country. The National Institute for Literacy has been instrumental in
forwarding its goals.
I have to add that, even with this amendment, the bill will continue
to force programs that invest in our people to fight for the same pot
of insufficient funds, but this amendment reflects a return to the kind
of bipartisan support for adult education and literacy that has been so
important to our work together.
Funding from OERI to the National Institute for Literacy extends this
bipartisan commitment to education research. However, given the cuts in
education research and the increase in number of programs that would
come out of the OERI line item, I would like to ask the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to clarify if it is his intention in any way to affect the
current distribution of funding levels between the education and the
research centers and the clearinghouses within the overall OERI budget,
or is it simply a positive step toward ensuring the availability of all
times of educational research.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support for
the amendment. He has always been in the forefront in our fight to
improve the literacy of this country.
It is fitting that we are standing here today since we stood together
on this floor in 1991, and the gentleman is correct about the intention
of my amendment. I have no intention of affecting the current structure
of funding for the lab, center, and clearinghouses within OERI.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commitment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, his leadership in this arena, commend him
for his support for this and research activities. I urge my colleagues
to fight against illiteracy and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Obey] wish to
be recognized in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will not make a big thing of this because I understand that it is
just a small item, but I did nonetheless want Members to understand
that, while everyone would like to restore funds for the institute for
literacy, it does come at a cost. I do not think that cost is
advisable.
The amendment, as I understand it, obtains the funding for the
gentleman's purposes by reducing the increase in the education research
account by $5 million so there would be $15 million above last year
left in the education research account.
The problem with that is that, while it sounds like that account is
being healthily enhanced, the problem is that, in fact, this bill is
cutting some 70 education programs, which the gentleman from Illinois,
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, has described as being
duplicative. We have said about 115 times on this side of the aisle
that we agree with the elimination of many of those programs in the
interest of consolidation and in the interest of rationalizing
administrative structures and delivering more service for dollars
spent. And because of the deficit squeeze.
But the problem with the elimination of those 70 programs is that we
have been told by the committee that because those programs represent
about $200 million in previous expenditures, some of those people
interested in those programs have been told, well, you can try to
apply, you can try to be funded in some way out of education research.
If you are cutting out $200 million and telling folks to go apply at
door B but door B is only increased by $20 million, then you have got a
very small percentage chance of actually getting an answer when you
knock on that door.
So while I am certainly not going to strenuously insist on my point,
and I am not even going to push this to a rollcall, I assure the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, I take this time mainly to explain the
fact that there is a cost to this amendment.
I am dubious about the value of the trade-off. I recognize the
intention of the gentleman, but I wanted to indicate that, if this were
pushed to a rollcall, I for one would vote ``no'' because I think that,
while we can have great arguments about the Federal role in education,
it seems to me there can be no argument about the necessity for the
Federal Government to try to stimulate research which can help us find
answers to many questions which have so far being unanswerable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I rise to make a couple of observations. The chairman of the
committee just a few seconds ago--he would not yield to me--said, look,
we are just cutting a little bit of money and the sky is not falling.
Well, apparently the gentleman from Pennsylvania believes the sky is
falling as it relates to the literacy council.
[[Page H 8345]]
Other colleagues on his side of the aisle said, we ought to send the
money out of Washington. We ought to let the local people make the
decision. We ought to have local application. We ought to have local
people working on that.
Is it not ironic that the first amendment offered is to add $5
million, and do you know where that $5 million goes? Here in
Washington, not out to the States, not out to local school systems, not
out to local literacy councils, here in Washington.
So, my friends, I say to you, we have had a lot of rhetoric about the
awful Democrats that centralizing money in Washington, and the first
amendment offered by the Republican chairman of the committee, of the
authorizing committee, offers an amendment to restore totally $5
million which, if divided, obviously, into 50 states, means $100,000 a
State. But it does not go to the States. It stays right here in
Washington,
I find it a little bit ironic. I am not against it, by the way. I
want to tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for whom I have a great
deal of respect and with whom, as he knows, I agree on his comments in
the earlier part of our debate where we need to make sure that programs
work effectively. He and I agree on that, whether it is chapter 1, Head
Start or any other program. I am not just spending these resources and
not making sure they work. But the fact of the matter is, this money,
as the distinguished ranking member knows, stays right here in
Washington with all those Washington bureaucrats. I am shocked that
this amendment would be offered.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I want to make several points. First off, there is a 23.5-percent
increase in the bill at the present time for OERI.
Second, I want to take issue, great issue with whether the money
stays in Washington, DC. We have a lot of literacy programs. We need a
combination, we need somebody to be a clearinghouse. We need somebody
to make sure that the local and the State government efforts are
coordinated. That is exactly where this money is going, my dear man
from Maryland, the money is going for the development of technical
assistance and information that is provided to State and local
programs. They need that kind of assistance. We give them that kind of
assistance, and OERI still has a 17-percent increase in this budget.
I cannot think of a better way to spend money, if you really are
interested in tackling the illiteracy problem that exists in the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1430
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understood the gentleman's answer was
that the local governments needed to have this information coordinated
and sent back to them on literacy.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. What I said was that the $5
million was for work done here in Washington to coordinate that
information, to send it back to the locals. But the money that the
gentleman's amendment is adding back in is going to be spent here
in Washington. I believe I am correct on that. If I am
not, I stand to be corrected, but staff seems to believe
that is the case.
The gentleman, in his answer to me, simply said that we sent it back,
that we sent that information back. That is correct. He said they need
it; they need that kind of coordination from Washington. I appreciate
his observation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will look on page 1079 of
the hearings, part 5, you will find absolutely no question this is a
Washington-based activity.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for calling my attention to the specific page and am pleased to hear
that I was correct.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Owens].
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that there
has been a misstatement about adding $5 million. This is squeezing of
$5 million out of other programs that are already in OERI. OERI's
budget was increased by 17 percent, but at the same time, they were
forced to assume responsibility for a number of other programs that
were defunded.
Mr. Chairman, if we add up the money taken away from those other
programs, like the desegregation centers, the technical assistance
centers, we will find what is taken away from them is far greater than
the increase that OERI received. Assuming that this colloquy had some
meaning, the colloquy protects the labs, the centers, and one other
item that was mentioned there as being protected. Only those 3 items
are protected. All of the other entities that are included in OERI will
have to suffer as a result.
Mr. Chairman, this is a squeezing, because of the fact that we start
out with the wrong amount for OERI to begin with, because we have the
wrong amount for the Department of Education totally. The problem is,
back to the B-2 bombers, back to the F-22s, back to all the wastes that
exist in other parts of the budget. We are forcing the other education
programs to eat each other, and that is not proper.
We should not be laboring under the illusion, thinking that $5
million is being added here and that is going to take care of the
literacy program and none of the other programs in OERI will be hurt.
Many vital programs in OERI have already been eliminated and they must
make up for that and assume those responsibilities with the existing
money that they have.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not allow them to do that. It only
places a greater burden on what is left in OERI, including the funding
of five institutes that have to be started up and they are part of the
existing OERI structure that has been approved.
All of that is being put under the hammer in terms of $5 million
being taken away.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, of course the money does not come from the existing
programs; it comes from the increase. There is still a 17-percent
increase for all of those programs.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, to
make one point.
Mr. Chairman, there is $20 million increase in the budget for this
operation. There is a potential increase in responsibilities of $200
million. Sounds to me like that is about 10 cents on the dollar. Far
from having increased ability to do the research they need, they are
going to be squeezed incredibly. I think Members need to understand
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments?
amendment no. 129 offered by mr. hastert
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hastert: Page 54, line 14, strike
``objective criteria'' and insert ``specific criteria''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of August 2, 1995, the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a
Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
Does the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] take the time in
opposition?
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the work of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] in bringing to my attention
a possible unintended consequence of the current title IX language
included in H.R. 2127.
[[Page H 8346]]
As one who has pointed out the unintended consequences of title IX,
in general, I certainly do not want to create any possible problems. I
commend the strong commitment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut to
the promotion of women's athletics and to title IX in general. We agree
that women's opportunities must continue to grow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] to discuss the concern that she has
with the current language in H.R. 2127.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the current language reads
that the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education must
have updated policy guidance, including objective criteria clarifying
how colleges and universities can demonstrate, first, a history and
continuing practice of program expansion; and, second, full and
effective accommodation of the interests and abilities of the
underrepresented sex.
I believe the word ``objective'' can, ironically, be a subjective
standard. It is my fear that parties who oppose title IX, or schools
that simply do not wish to comply, could take the policy guidance
developed, by OCR, to court over whether or not the criteria developed
are truly objective.
If such a court case was pending, Mr. Chairman, it is entirely
possible that funding for OCR's enforcement of all civil rights laws
would be in jeopardy. This is absolutely ludicrous and far from the
gentleman's intent and far from anyone's intent in proposing the
language in the bill.
My concern is alleviated by the substitute amendment we offer today,
which replaces objective criteria with specific criteria. This language
still ensures OCR must provide more guidance to schools by December 31,
1995. However, it is hard to argue in court that criteria are not
specific. Therefore, I do not believe the same threat of a loss of
funds for civil rights enforcement due to court cases exists with this
language.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I further emphasize
the intent of this language is to make sure that OCR issues clear
guidance to make the second and third prongs of the opportunities test
of title IX usable for colleges and universities. Current guidance is
simply not working. We definitely do not want to eliminate funding for
the enforcement of important civil rights laws.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, last week I filed an amendment which would have struck
all of the language with reference to title IX, because I felt that it
would do egregious harm to the enforcement of the program and to all
the wonderful things that title IX has achieved over the years since
1972.
I want to acknowledge the willingness of the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hastert] to modify the language of the provision in the
appropriations bill and to address our very grave concerns about the
use of the word ``objective'' and how it could completely modify the
enforcement potential of title IX with respect to athletic programs.
In taking the lead, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Johnson], has shown great leadership. The gentlewoman's concern
was brought to my attention at one of our meetings. I shared that
concern, and we have been working together to try to work our
modification of the language.
However, Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the inclusion of any
language whatsoever. I appreciate the modification that it makes is
less onerous to the department and less difficult to deal with.
However, my general feeling is that this language is not necessary,
should not be included as legislation in an appropriations bill, and
certainly, from the majority point of view, where it has been expressed
on so many occasions that we ought not to be micromanaging the
executive branch, this is a clear indication of micromanagement in an
area where I do not feel this type of instruction is either useful or
necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point to a letter which was sent to two
of our colleagues on that side of the aisle. It is a letter from the
U.S. Department of Education in June 1995. We had public hearings on
this issue and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] came and
testified and provided us with a clear view of the concerns that the
gentleman was raising with respect to the intercollegiate athletic
programs.
The Department of Education pointed out that, notwithstanding the
views that are out there in the public, the Department of Education's
guidelines clearly point out that the three areas of concern that have
been expressed in the hearings are in the alternative that is
repeatedly expressed at the hearings, and that these three guidances
that have been elaborated in part of the policy documents of the
Department, are expressed in alternatives. It is not a situation where
all three of these guidelines need to be complied with.
The first has to do with substantial, proportionate enrollment. That
is an alternative.
The second alternative is the establishment of history and continuing
practice of program expansion for members of the underrepresented sex.
That is an alternative way in which the universities' programs could
meet the requirements of title IX.
The third alternative is whether full and effective accommodation of
the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex have been
accommodated by the universities' programs. That is another
alternative.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the hearing clearly put forth the
Department's understanding as to how they apply these guidance criteria
and that in no case does the department take the point of view that all
three criteria need to be met.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Department has recently stated that
they are in the process of trying to meet these concerns that are out
there in the various universities, and that they are in the process of
putting forth new guidance with respect to these three guidance
positions.
Mr. Chairman, the Department has more than adequately stated their
position and clarified the problem. This provision in the
appropriations bill is totally unnecessary. I would have hoped that the
provision would have been stricken, together with all of the other
legislative language that had been included in the global amendment of
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] the other day, but it was not,
so the problem still persists.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], our minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding and I
want to commend her and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]
for their leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, as a young man, 32 years ago, I was fortunate enough to
receive an athletic scholarship to the University of Iowa. Quite
frankly, had I not received that scholarship, I am not so sure that I
would have been able to continue my education at that time.
I went through the University of Iowa, played football, and I do not
recall at that time if there were any women at that university who were
on athletic scholarships.
Mr. Chairman, title IX, instituted 20 years ago, has helped literally
tens of thousands of women and young women in this country get an
education who normally would not have had a chance to get an education.
{time} 1445
The opportunity that an athletic scholarship provided me in terms of
my education is now available, the door is now open to literally tens
of thousands of young women. It has been a tremendous success, and I
would hope that we would not in this Congress or in this legislation or
in this amendment roll back the door, roll back the opportunities that
are available to young women.
I want for my daughter the same opportunities that my son will have,
and title IX has provided that for literally countless numbers of young
women today in America.
Even though title IX has been in force for over 20 years now, women
athletes still have far fewer opportunities to play in intercollegiate
sports than male athletes. While women are over half the undergraduates
in our colleges
[[Page H 8347]]
and universities, female athletes are limited to just one-third of all
varsity slots.
I might also point out at this point, Mr. Chairman, that men's
athletic opportunities have not suffered overall as a result of title
IX. Men's participation in intercollegiate sports has increased since
the passage of title IX. In fact, for every new dollar spent on women's
sports, two new dollars have been spent on men's sports. So let us not
turn back the clock. Let us keep the door open. Let us make sure that
these young women coming out of high school today who would normally
not have had a chance to get an education and live a dream that many of
them seek, have that opportunity, and I encourage my colleagues to be
supportive of this program.
I want to associate myself at this time with the remarks of the
distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I would like to associate myself and address myself to the gentleman,
the minority whip. You know, the purpose of this thing, I absolutely
support women's athletics. As a matter of fact, my spouse is a women's
athletic coach, and I think it has been great, the growth that title IX
has brought forward in the last few years.
The problem is in my district and in districts across this country,
many schools, when confronted, because the law has not been clearly
laid out for them, especially in two of the three prongs, they have
decided, many schools have decided, not to expand women's sports but to
instead cut back men's sports to meet the proportionality rule. That
certainly was never the intent of the law.
What we are asking in this is for them to set up a more definite,
specific language so they can meet those last two wordings of those
tests.
I think that is certainly something that we can work together on,
that I am completely dedicated to and, as a matter of fact, one of the
things that has happened across this country, in the gentleman's State
of Michigan, my State, Iowa, your alma mater State, we have lost
literally hundreds of minor men's sports teams because of this type of
cutback, swimming programs, gymnastic programs, wrestling programs,
those types of sports. Those participants have lost the opportunity to
participate.
We are hoping that we can clarify that language and make it easier
for everybody to have an opportunity to compete.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say
that as one who probably would not be here today if I had not had the
opportunity to participate in a very competitive women's sports
program, I am pleased that we are all united on the value of title IX.
We would not have the women in basketball, women excelling at the
Olympics, women tennis players of the excellence and caliber, women
drivers, women excelling in all of the sports, without title IX, and I
commend my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], and the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], for their commitment to title IX
and making sure it works well for women throughout America in the
course of our discussions about this amendment.
It is very important that the Federal Government be able to work with
institutions so that competitive sports is a strong, healthy part of
the lives of all Americans, and I believe it is critical that together
we assure that not only are these regulations completed on time but
they are completed in a way that the universities and colleges of
America can comply with them readily, and we can all assure that
progress is made toward equal opportunity for sports, to participate in
competitive sports in the decades ahead for all of our kids.
I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his work on this important
issue.
Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time, 1 minute,
to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleagues, the
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] and the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and in support of title IX.
I would just like to say that I have very athletic children. In fact,
my youngest son is an Honorable Mention All-American college football
player. I know how important that experience was to him. He also has a
brother that is an athlete and a sister that is an athlete. It was
equally important for them to have athletic experience. It gave them a
grounding that we cannot overlook, and it taught all of them, boys and
girls alike in my family, teamwork, taught them individual
competitiveness, and it taught them self-assurance and self-respect.
We must, must support title IX, and we cannot ever take away from
that program. As a matter of fact, I do not suggest that we cut men's
sports. I suggest we expand our contribution to all sports.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. I want everyone to understand this is not a debate about
title IX. This is a debate about some kind of clarity and equity in the
enforcement of title IX.
We have held hearings on this issue in front of our subcommittee in
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities as recently as
July. I received a personal letter from Norma Cantu, the assistant
secretary, where she said:
I agree OCR should take steps to clarify our existing
standards and to ensure that colleges and universities fully
understand what steps are required to comply with title IX.
I have to tell you this right here is just part of the communication
between the University of Wisconsin and the Office of Civil Rights on
this issue, and it is clear that the Office of Civil Rights has decided
you meet standard 1 or you do not qualify, and if you do not accept
standard 1, initially, we are going to require additional remedial
corrections by you; it is absolutely absurd. Either this office
clarifies and corrects this, or next year we are going to have to
prohibit any funding for this particular activity, and I hope none of
us arrives at that point in the process.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute
Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of putting this, as I regret in doing
it because it stemmed out of a letter written to the Office of Civil
Rights on June 30 with 134 signatures asking for clarification. We have
never received that clarification.
It is not out intent to stop or to limit any activity, athletic
activity, but we want to clarify that for schools who are
participating.
I think this language takes that action, and I ask for a positive
vote on this amendment.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hastert
amendment. In my district in east-central Illinois, I represent
Illinois State University which has been wrestling with the gender
equity issue for the last half year. In the last 6 months, the
university has seen lawsuits raised for fraud, the canceling of its
men's wrestling and soccer programs, and student athletic scholarships
canceled. We have a policy at the Department of Education that is in
desperate need of clarification and review.
In May of this year, the Postsecondary Education, Training and
Lifelong Learning Subcommittee held hearings in which it was abundantly
clear that universities nationwide had no idea if they were in
compliance with gender unity or not. In some cases, even after schools
had been OK'd by the Department of Education for title 9 compliance
they later found in court that they were not in compliance at all.
Back at Illinois State University, the men's wrestling and soccer
teams have been eliminated in the name of gender equity while women's
soccer has been added. I am happy to see that many young women have
gained new opportunities in sports at ISU, but I am also disappointed
that many young men have lost opportunities as well, especially when
they had been recruited to the university to participate in those
programs. In 1974, when Congress first enacted gender equity its intent
was clear: Expand athletic opportunities for female athletes. The
authors of this legislation never intended to eliminate opportunities
for men. Nevertheless, in the middle of their spring semester many
young men were told that their
[[Page H 8348]]
team was going to be eliminated and that if they wanted to play soccer
or wrestle they would have to do it somewhere else. These students had
invested time and hard work, and were very disappointed, so
disappointed that these young athletes now have an attorney.
We have heard that the gender equity regulations are under review,
but promises are no longer good enough. This inconsistent and confusing
regulation is another example of the Federal Government micromanaging
the local lives of Americans. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Hastert
amendment which will require the Department to clarify their
regulations by December 31, 1995.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by Representative Hastert that modifies a provision
in H.R. 2127 that would require the Department of Education's Office of
Civil Rights [OCR] to clarify its enforcement policy of title IX of the
Educational Amendments Act of 1972.
Colleges and universities across Nebraska have asked that the
Department clear up the confusion that's been created because OCR has
failed to clarify two of the three tests that ensure women and men have
equal athletic opportunities.
While we all want to ensure that all students have equal
opportunities to participate in and have athletic programs, the
Department has continued to apply only one of three tests that are
supposed to be used to help schools decide if they're meeting this
requirement. Because of the Department's actions, there now exists a
quota system in college athletics.
The other two tests have become meaningless because schools have no
objectionable standard in which to gage full compliance with title IX.
The Hastert modifying amendment simply requires that that the
Department issue specific standards on these two tests by the end of
this year, so that colleges and universities will finally be able to
evaluate their programs based on solid standards, instead of the
current quota system.
Mr. Chairman, current title IX enforcement is threatening viable
athletic programs that have benefited men and women. In Nebraska, our
outstanding football program has provided a valuable source of income
to the athletic department which has in turn helped the University's
other athletic programs. It would be unfortunate that what has taken
years to develop and has become the pride of Nebraska, could be
threatened because the Department has failed to fully clarify title
IX's opportunities tests.
I urge my colleagues to support the Hastert amendment to H.R. 2127.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. THORNTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my appreciation to the
distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle who truly believe
that education is important. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
will be bringing forward an amendment to accent education.
This is an important occasion because we are addressing problems that
will affect the future of the United States well into the next century.
We are concerned because our Nation has deep problems. We are
wrestling with the problems of poverty, because we have had an
imbalance in our budget.
But we are also wrestling, I submit, with a larger poverty, a poverty
of vision and of self-assurance that would teach us that we have the
resources in this Nation to enter the next century as the greatest
Nation on Earth economically, the mightiest militarily, and the
strongest in pursuit of democratic ideals. But we are too poor, we are
told and I am here today to say that I am tired of people saying that
this country is too poor to meet its obligations to our young people
for an education, we are too poor, to meet our commitment to our
veterans, we are too poor, we are told, to continue to live up to the
trust of Medicare.
Mr. Chairman, this Nation does have financial problems. We have great
financial problems. I have been told that every person in this country
owes $18,000 in debt. That is a terrible amount of debt. It is terrible
to think that we are that deeply in debt.
But let me tell you something, Mr. Chairman, this is not the worst
debt this country has ever had. At the end of World War II, after the
Great Depression and after fighting Germany and the Axis powers and
Japan to a victory, this Nation owed 120 percent of its gross national
product in debt, head over heels in debt. We owed $260 billion and our
total income, for everyone, was only $212 billion. By contrast, in the
1970's, we had pulled our debt down to 23 percent of our gross national
product. By wise investments and increased productivity we reduced our
debt down to 23 percent of our gross national product in the 1970's.
Then we went on a spree of spending more and cutting revenues, creating
huge deficits with the result that our debt is nearly 70 percent of our
gross national product. This is bad, but not as bad as the 120 percent
at the end of World War II.
These percentages of financial poverty are not as important as the
poverty of courage, the poverty of vision. At the end of World War II
our Nation was head over heels in debt, worse than at any point in its
history, but we did not say, ``We are too poor to meet our obligations
to our servicemen, we are too poor to educate our young people.'' No,
sir, we did not say that.
One of the last things President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed
before he died at Warm Springs was that when they return from conflict,
we should establish a GI bill to provide an education for every
serviceman and servicewoman in this country. Mr. Chairman, we are not
too poor to educate our children. We were not then, and we are not now.
Just a few years later, another great President, Dwight David
Eisenhower, proposed to a country which was still head over heels in
debt, that we are not too poor to build an interstate system that
stretches from Maine to California, from Florida to Washington, and we
built the infrastructure of this country so we could have a thriving
economy which has made us the mightiest Nation on Earth.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that today, as we address the
problems of the future, we are making the excuse we are just too poor,
we just cannot afford it, we just cannot afford to educate our
children, to keep our commitment to our elderly, we cannot keep our
commitment to our veterans, because, you see, we are broke, we are
broke. We owe $18,000 per person.
{time} 1500
But where in that accounting of debt are our assets? How much is it
worth to be an American citizen? Mr. Chairman, please tell me why
people from Central America and the Caribbean and East Europe are
battering the doors of this country down to move here? Do you believe
they want to come in and help us carry that $18,000 of debt; that they
just want to be a part of this bankrupt country? No. sir.
They know what every American citizen knows, that we are the richest
and most powerful Nation on the face of the earth and that what we have
is much greater than what we owe. We have an obligation to invest our
money wisely.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Williams, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Thornton
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, the point is, that every businessman
worth his salt has debts far greater than $18,000, but will wisely make
investments for future returns. Everyone knows that poverty is not a
thing to be proud of, nor ashamed of, but to be gotten rid of as
quickly as conveniently possible, and as my grandad told me, if you are
head over heels in debt, you cannot spend your way out of debt, but you
cannot starve you way out of debt. The only way to get out of debt is
to work your way out of debt, and the way you do that is by investing
in the future, in the education and training of our young people.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THORNTON. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, along with the attention that I think we owe the
gentleman in the well is also our attention to his
[[Page H 8349]]
statements about the poverty of courage and boldness and grandness in
America today.
Let me extend that just one additional step. Not only were those who
came before us in Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman's time and the
citizens who served with them, not only did they have great courage,
even in the face of debt, but they understood something that this
particular Congress appears not to understand, and that is, investments
in education will, in fact, in the near term, reduce the deficit.
Mr. Chairman, a former Speaker of this House asked for a review of a
cost-benefit analysis of the cost of the GI bill and the benefits
returned to the Treasury. When the results came back, they were
astonishing. The GI bill has now paid off the entire capital cost of
World War II several times. Had we not spent that education money in
the 1940's, the debt would be much higher than it is today.
One of the reasons that debt continues to rise under Republican
Presidential leadership is because they do not understand the necessity
of investment. Businesspeople understand it. Certainly the Japanese
have understood it. America not only lacks, it seems to me, in its
leadership the power of courage today, but we misunderstand the
necessity of investments, such as continued and increased national
investments in education.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, every family in
America understands the importance of educating our children, and, Mr.
Chairman, I come before you today urging support of the Lowey amendment
and to urge that we recapture the self-assurance, courage, and vision
which guided us after World War II to invest in the future. An
investment in education reduces our deficit, and secures our future.
amendment no. 30 offered by mrs. lowey
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, marked as amendment
No. 30.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 30 offered by Mrs. Lowey: On page 45 line 15,
strike ``and 3'' and insert ``3 and 4'' and on page 45 line
17, strike $6,916,915,000 and insert $6,920,915,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995,
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] will be recognized for 20
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the bill's cuts in student aid.
Unfortunately, these cuts only foreshadow the $10 billion in student
aid cuts which will be made this fall in the reconciliation bill. This
bill alone cuts the Perkins loan program, one of the oldest and most
important Federal student aid programs in this country.
Three-quarters of a million students across America depend upon the
Perkins program. In my State of New York alone, Perkins provided low
interest loans to nearly 60,000 deserving students.
As you can see on this chart, over 88 percent of undergraduate
students who benefit from Perkins loans come from families with incomes
under $50,000. These are kids from hard-working, middle-class families
who are feeling squeezed, squeezed in whatever they do in their life.
These families need more, not less, help to send their kids to college.
The bill completely eliminates another program, State student
incentive grants. Over 200,000 students depend upon these grants. The
modest $63 million which the Federal Government spends on the program
drives over $650 million in State funds, a huge return on the Federal
dollar.
The elimination of SSIG will not be made up by other sources of
student aid. Where will these 200,000 students turn for help?
Let me tell my colleagues about two students who depend on Federal
student aid. Sebastian Tuccitto of the Bronx attends St. John's
University in my district. Sebastian is in his junior year studying
accounting. Unfortunately, like so many other families in this country
struggling to get by, Sebastian's parents cannot contribute much to his
education. His father is a carpenter who was injured on the job and his
mom works at a supermarket. Neither of his parents went to college, and
let me say, school is anything but fun and games for this young man who
works several jobs struggling to get that education. He works at least
20 hours a week while he attends school and he still gets a 3.1 GPA.
Does this Congress really want to make it more difficult for young
men like this to go to college?
Or Denise Fiacco who will be a senior at a State school where she
will major in chemistry and math. Like Sebastian, Denise is on her own.
Her parents are not able to help with her tuition so Denise works to
earn money for school which supplements her student aid. She even had
to drop out of school for a year in order to earn money for college.
Is this Congress willing to tell Denise and Sebastian that they
cannot be part of the American dream? Are we today in the United States
of America, the most prosperous Nation in the world, going to tell
these young people that we are not going to invest so they can get the
skills so they can earn their way in this great country our ours so
they can compete in the global marketplace?
A college degree today is simply a matter of economic survival.
Again, my colleagues, look at this chart. Look at the fact. A person
with a college degree earns close to twice as much as someone with only
a high school education earns. The more a person learns, the more a
person earns.
Are we willing to tell Denise and Sebastian that we do not care about
their future today? I certainly am not.
I cannot find any way, my colleagues, to defend these cuts. We are
going to hear a lot of excuses, but there is no way to defend these
cuts. Let us not balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's
future, our students. Let us give each and every student the same
chance at the American dream that our own children have.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be recognized
in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is recognized
for 20 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the bill contains the largest single year increase in
Pell grants ever and raises the maximum grant to the highest level in
history, $2,440. This is the program that provides access to the most
financially needy students in America who would otherwise not be able
to afford to go to college.
The bill fully funds the supplemental educational opportunity grants
at the President's request and at the 1995 level. The bill fully funds
the work study program at the President's request at the 1995 level.
The bill fully funds the TRIO program at the President's request at the
1995 level. That is over $7 billion in student assistance and it is all
grant assistance, not loans that have to be repaid.
As the gentlewoman from New York notes, we have reductions in funding
for two programs which together previously represented less than 3
percent of Federal student financial assistance in this bill. The
Perkins loan program is a revolving loan program that already has $6
billion in assets in it. I might note that the President himself
proposed terminating capital contributions for this program last year
as we have done in this bill.
The Perkins funds are funds that are controlled and matched by over
2,000 participating schools. Loans are made by the schools and when
they come into repayment, new loans are made.
Our bill in no way affects the $6 billion in those revolving loan
funds.
It is true, however, that we are not adding new capital to the
program. In this budget environment, we simply cannot be increasing the
program. But the funding that is already out there is going to stay
there. Now loans will be made.
Earlier, the gentleman from Wisconsin suggested that hundreds of
thousands of students are not going to get loans because we are not
adding $158 million in new capital to the Perkins
[[Page H 8350]]
program. That contention is simply wrong. Every kid that would be
served by Perkins if we put that $158 million in new capital in the
program will qualify for a direct student loan or a Federal family
education loan. This decision on Perkins will not prevent a single
student anywhere from getting a Federal loan, period.
Now, we have some who have suggested that if we do
not add capital to this program, it will wither and die over time.
This is also misleading, Mr. Chairman. Students pay 5 percent interest
on Perkins loans, which means that they repay more than they are
loaned. So the program actually grows over time. In addition, schools
must match at least one-third of the Federal contribution. They tell us
that this is a very high priority program for them.
Well, if the schools continue making their contribution to the
program in addition to the $6 billion they already have in their
revolving funds, the program will continue to grow.
The only way Perkins will shrink in the absence of Federal capital
contributions is if schools do a poor job of collecting loans, if they
permit defaults in excess of 5 percent plus their contributions to the
programs.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's heart is in the right place, but the
Perkins program is going to remain strong. It is going to continue to
grow despite this small, reasonable contribution to deficit reduction.
I want to address the issue of the State student incentive grant
program for which the Federal contribution is terminated in this bill.
Just like Perkins, this is a program that President Clinton proposed to
terminate last year and he still proposes terminating it.
This program was created in 1972 as a temporary incentive program to
encourage States to establish their own need-based grant programs. It
was not intended to be a permanent subsidy to the States. In 1972, only
26 States had need-based grant programs. Today, all 50 States and the
District of Columbia have these programs.
As the National Performance Review indicated, the program has
achieved its purpose and should now be terminated. In addition, today
46 States overmatch the SSIG requirement; 42 States award need-based
aid other than SSIG and 33 States award non-need-based grants; 23
States make grants to part-time students and 21 States make grants to
graduate students. Clearly, the Federal responsibility and role have
disappeared.
According to the Department of Education, the Federal contribution to
SSIGs represents only 2.5 percent of grants awarded by States. The
members of our subcommittee felt, I think rightly, that at a
time when we have to reduce spending in this bill by 13 percent
overall, 9 percent in this cycle, it is certainly fair to ask the
States to accept a reduction in Federal subsidies of their grant
programs of only one-fifth of that amount.
Some critics have suggested that some states may discontinue their
grant programs if the SSIG funding is terminated. I cannot imagine a
more irresponsible response to this bill. All of the States have had 24
years of Federal assistance to get their systems up and running and to
become self-sufficient. If the States cannot become self-sufficient in
24 years, they have either grossly mismanaged their education funds or
they have abused the Federal assistance by treating it as a permanent
operating subsidy rather than as start-up assistance, as it was
intended.
{time} 1515
Mr. Chairman, this bill and the student loan entitlements will make
available to students $35 billion in student financial assistance in
1996. These reasonable reductions and strong support for student aid
proposed in this bill will not adversely affect students, and they
should be adopted.
The sky is not falling.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the Perkins Loan Program began in 1958 in
response to the Russian Sputnik program. It was part of the National
Defense Education Act. I would not be here in Congress today if it were
not for that National Defense Education Act. That is what enabled me to
get a college education.
This Congress, a long time ago, decided to give people like me the
opportunity to work their way up the opportunity ladder, and I am very
grateful for it. About one-third of the Members of this Congress have
been beneficiaries of the very same program which we are suggesting now
that we will not fund for the first time since 1958. I ask my
colleagues to not pull the ladder of opportunity up after they have
climbed it before they let others do the same thing. Give them the same
opportunity that we have had.
The Republican majority says, ``Oh, don't worry, don't worry. This
isn't much of a cut.'' Tell that to the 150,000 students who are not
going to get Perkins loans. Tell that to them. Go ahead. And keep in
mind the second step is going to come in September when the
reconciliation bill comes to this House, and in that bill the Congress
is going to be cutting $10 billion additional money out of student aid.
That is estimated to increase the cost to student borrowers on average
by 20 percent. If my colleagues think increasing the cost to student
borrowers by 20 percent is opening the door of opportunity, I think
they need a new dictionary.
I just cannot believe that we are about to do this. You talk about a
$10 billion reduction, they talk about the elimination of the Perkins
loan program, as though it is nothing at all. Well, if it is not real
savings, then how are we going to be able to use that $10 billion for
the purpose you intend, which is again to provide those tax cuts for
people making more than $100,000 a year. It is a bad mistake.
Defeat this bill.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. Lowey] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, Lu Ann Nye and her daughter are the kind of folks that
are going to be impacted by what is happening here today. She is a
courageous woman who had the courage to leave welfare, and go back to
Austin Community College, and get a degree to support her daughter. Our
Republican friends came after the daughter and her friends when they
began cutting school lunch earlier in the year. Now they come after the
big brothers, and the big sisters, and the older students, like Lu Ann,
and cut into their Federal study financial assistance, and when they
cut, it is not just dollars that they are cutting, but the hopes, and
the aspirations, and the dreams of a generation of people, up to, as
the chairman said, the ranking member said, 150,000 young people on the
Perkins loan program.
How extraordinary it is that this House is headed by a Speaker who is
a sometime professor of history at a time that we are ending an
historic Federal commitment to education.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there is a difference in philosophy,
and I think, if debate boils down, I think we ought to point out the
differences in philosophy.
This side of the aisle are saying that we are cutting education. On
our side we think that they will fail to see the solution to a very
simple problem, that there is too much bureaucracy that eats up the
dollars that we send back to the Federal Government, and, by the time
we send it back to the States, we only get about 23 cents out of every
dollar back down into the classroom.
The second misnomer is it is not their money. Every time that my
colleagues take and give a dollar out, they have got to first take it
away from somebody. They are taking it away from the very people that
they try to give it back to, and they give it out, and only 23 cents on
the dollar. I say to my colleagues they sure could not run a business
like that.
So, if my colleagues want to increase the amount of spending on
education, we need to send it back to the States. We also need to limit
the size of State government so that that bureaucracy does not eat up
the money for the very thing that we are trying to do.
Let me give my colleagues a classic example. I have got a school in
Scripps
[[Page H 8351]]
Ranch. That school has got fiber optics into it. It was a partnership
between the city and State. We have got computers in every classroom. I
have got boys and girls in vocational education swinging hammers. They
are building modular units. And guess what? They are selling those
units, and then they reinvest the money in high-tech education
equipment within that school. Those that are college-bound in
architecture, design, and computerization are also encouraged, and they
have actually redesigned the whole school, and guess what, in the
summertime the partnership of labor and private enterprise are higher
in those same kids.
Now think of the advantage that these kids have over someone that
does not have that program. It is on a local level.
And then they chastise us and say we do not care about kids because
we are cutting money from the summers jobs program. The summer jobs
program has probably taught less than 5 percent of the kids how to work
and how to get a job. The place to teach kids on how to survive in the
future is in education, is at the site, either vocational or those that
go for college bound, and we need to take those kinds of moneys and
invest them in those programs.
We double our knowledge every year now, not 30 years like we used to,
Mr. Chairman, and, if we do not have the facilities for the kids to
learn, then they have a legitimate gripe that the difference between
those that have money and those on a low-income will increase
disproportionately, and that is what we need to do.
If my colleagues really want to take a look at how to kill education,
keep the Federal bureaucracy going. We have got to eliminate the power
of Members in this body to send home dollars so that they can get
reelected over and over, and take that power away and give it back to
the people, and that is the difference of opinion.
We are not killing education. We are giving the power of the people
and the States the power to control their own destiny and take the
money and the power away from Washington, DC. That is the total
difference.
Now the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said
that, if it had not been for the National Defense Education Act, he
would not be here. Many of us wish in that case that it had never
existed. Mr. Chairman, I am joking. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] is a good friend.
But in the grant that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery]
worked hard on, those are good grants out of the Federal Government.
Education is financed by 95 percent in the States. We only fund about
5 percent, and we are destroying it? No, what we are doing is saying we
need to turn that 5 percent, get most of it back into the classroom,
eliminate the bureaucracy in Washington, limit the bureaucracy in the
States, and get more of the money down into the classroom. That is not
a concept that should be beyond the Members over here, but yet they
want to hang on to the power, the power to get reelected.
And I look at the Pell grants, and the history and look at the number
of dollars that have been taken from the GI bill. We did not have the
bureaucracy we had when the GI bill was stated. Most of it went
directly down to those people that loaned it, and, Mr. Chairman, when
my colleagues think about cutting education they should take a look and
mention the school lunch. The school lunch program is set to feed those
kids that need it, 185 percent below poverty level, and the gentleman
from Texas fails to see that solution also. Why should the Government,
why should they have the power to send dollars to feed my daughters?
They do not need the money, but yet they want the exclusive right to
control all the dollars.
That is wrong, Mr. Chairman, and that is the difference between the
philosophies. Let us take care of the people that really need it, and
let us take the power away from the Federal Government. I am trying to
take my own power away, and my colleagues', and treat that power and
get it to the kids and to the families. That is the difference of
opinion. We are not cutting education. My colleagues are stopping
education from growing because of the big-government Clinton politics
that their side supports.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, beginning with Thomas Jefferson and
throughout the ensuing two centuries this Nation has followed a grand
and productive tradition of the local, State, and Federal education
partnership. Today with shame the U.S. House of Representatives sounds
an unprecedented retreat on that centuries-old commitment to America's
students, and this amendment describes why.
Three years ago this Congress passed, and President Bush thankfully
signed, the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, of which I was the
sponsor. Today with shame the House of Representatives reneges on that
commitment.
Perkins student loans are particularly valuable to middle-income
college students and their families, and with shame this House is about
to vote to cut 157,000 middle-income students off of that assistance. I
say to my colleague, those aren't bureaucrats, Mr. Conningham. Those
are middle-income students, American citizens. Today the House changes
in the Pell grant program will deny 220,000 middle-income students a
Pell grant. Those aren't bureaucrats. Those are your kids.
AmeriCorps accepts middle-income people, as it should, and they can
earn $9,000 in college stipends. Shamefully that program was eliminated
by the Republican majority law week.
These efforts of the new majority in this House aimed at America's
middle-income struggling parents and students are shameful, and they
are unnecessary, and they are imprudent, and they are unwise, and
worse, my colleagues, they will end up increasing the Federal deficit
in just the next decade. That is the shame.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us will impose severe cuts on
educational assistance, and it will deny millions of Americans the
chance to go to college, and this is an opportunity that is
increasingly elusive for middle-income Americans, and I would like to
illustrate the effect of these cuts by introducing my colleagues to a
young lady. Her name is Jenifer. She is from Hockum, WA. She is one of
eight children, the first in her family to go to college. Jenifer lives
on her own. She supports herself, and indeed she helps her family with
their expenses. Her father is a logger, and he makes about $28,000 a
year. She has to pay a tuition of about $11,600 a year. She commutes 60
miles a day to school. She works 30 hours a week in her hometown, and
she works an additional 15 to 20 hours at her college, and when she
graduates she wants to become a teacher. Jenifer currently receives
Federal financial assistance in the form of Pell grants, Perkins loans,
State student senate grants, all of which are reduced or eliminated
under this legislation. Under this bill she would most likely loose her
SSIG grant and her Pell grant, and the amount of her Perkins loan would
either be reduced, at best, or eliminated. This adds up for her
education to an additional $2,000 to $3,000 in added costs, and I ask
my Republican colleagues where is she going to get this money? She
cannot possibly work any longer. She already commutes 60 miles a day to
school, but I tell my colleagues what I think is likely to happen.
{time} 1530
She very well might be forced to drop out and to compromise her
chance for a college education. She represents exactly the type of
young person we should support, but instead this legislation is taking
away that support.
We must continue to support higher education through these programs.
We must continue to provide people a chance to achieve the American
dream. Let us not take that dream away by passing this legislation. Let
us reinforce and reinvent the future of this country.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished Chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
[[Page H 8352]]
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day or two on this
bill. Every time I walk into the Chamber I hear some of the most
incredible stuff imaginable. The world is truly coming to an end,
according to the other side. We are reneging on our commitments,
whether you are talking about violence against women, which has nothing
to do with this section of the bill but I know is a primary source of
concern for the gentlewoman from New York who spoke earlier on that.
We are spending more on this bill than has ever been spent on that
program. Speaking of spending more than ever--$278 billion--is what
this bill would spend--$278 billion on health, education, labor issues,
and workfare issues--$270 billion--more than we spent on defense of the
Nation.
Now, $7 billion of that would be spent directly on education
assistance for people who do not have any money, $7 billion. As I said
earlier, you remember Everett Dirksen's comment that a billion dollars
here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you are speaking of
real money, $7 billion is a lot of money. Not only is it a lot of
money, but the fact is it breaks down into some 240 separate programs,
each with its
own constituency, each with its own bureaucracy, each overlapping,
each spending money unnecessarily.
I heard the gentleman who preceded me say unnecessary cuts. I would
say there is unnecessary spending because we are spending money on
bureaucracies that compete with each other to shovel out money. But
whose money is it? The money belongs to the American taxpayer. As long
as these people can stand there and say how much they are doing for
people in America, using money from the American taxpayer, as long as
they can write the checks, as long as they can pass out the credit
card, they are happy. They do not want to streamline Government. They
do not want to cut back. They do not want to make it more efficient.
And then they have the gall, the audacity, the effrontery to stand in
this well and say how badly we are cutting.
Let me show you how we are cutting. Here is a good example. We have
heard Pell grants talked about for the last several minutes. This bill
supports student assistance by providing the largest maximum Pell grant
award in history, $2,440 per student. Now, that is the largest amount
ever in the history of the Pell grant system, $2,440 per student.
So are we cutting back? Oh my goodness, we are giving more money to
the students than ever before. In the work study program it is fully
funded at last year's level, $617 million. The program provides grants
to 3,700 schools to provide work study opportunities for 713,000
students who receive $1,092 per year.
The Federal supplemental education opportunities grants program
provides $583 million, and the Trio program provides $463 million,
which benefits minority and disadvantaged students. They are both
preserved at last year's spending levels. Let me repeat that for those
that missed it, last year's spending levels.
There is $6 billion left in the Perkins loan program, which we heard
so much about. If schools manage their portfolios, do not permit
defaults and continue their current contributions, that account could
actually grow so not a single student will go without aid as a result
of these actions.
Now they say the sky is falling, the world is coming to an end, but
not a single student will go without aid as a result of these actions.
I urge the adoption of this bill.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this Congress has passed some awful
legislation, but this bill is worse than I ever thought possible.
Mr. Chairman, this bill signals the beginning of the end of the
Federal Government having any responsibility whatsoever, in helping
middle income and low income students get a college education.
Mr. Chairman, I know first hand the importance of education, because,
27 years ago, I was a single, working mother receiving no child
support.
I was forced to go on welfare, even though I was working, in order to
give my three small children the health care, child care, and food they
needed.
Fortunately, I had advantages that many mothers on welfare do not.
You see, I had an education. I had some college and I had good job
skills.
But, just because I made it off welfare, I will never, not for 1
minute, think that so can others with fewer advantages--those with less
education, or no education at all. That is why, for the life of me, I
cannot understand why some Members who used student aid, the G.I. bill,
as a ladder to make a better life for themselves now want to pull that
ladder up behind them.
This righteous attitude of ``I did it, so why can't you'' has no
place in this body. It has no place because it leads to elitist and
dangerous policy like the drastic cuts in student loans we are
considering today.
These cuts make it clear that the Gingrich Republicans would rather
invest in a tax break for the fat cats, then student loans for low and
middle income families.
Mr friends, I could go on and on about the other faults of this bill,
but they are much too numerous to mention.
But, one thing is for sure. This bill will go down in history as a
declaration of war on our children, our working families, and seniors.
I urge all Americans who care about the education of their children
to tell their Representatives to oppose this bill.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time just to make two observations. One I
made yesterday when the gentleman from Ohio offered his amendment where
I indicated that he was buying 40 minutes of time, but he was not
buying any education or any training.
I have to say the same is true, of course, in this amendment, where
we are buying 40 minutes of time or how much ever time it is but only
buying $600,000 worth of outlays in money.
The second observation I want to make, two or three speakers ago made
the statement that we are cutting out the Perkins loan, and I want to
make very sure that nobody goes home with that thought in mind,
because, of course, the $6 billion in the revolving fund is still
there. The encouragement is to make sure that you collect it so it can
revolve so more students can use it.
So we are not cutting out the Perkins loan, as a matter of fact. What
we are doing is allowing the $6 billion in the revolving fund to
continue. I wanted to make those two observations to bring a little
reality to the debate.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Green].
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding me the 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the value of a college education is unquestioned in our
society yet the Republican majority has decided that a college
education should only be granted to those with enough cash to pay up
front. By reducing the funding available to the Federal student loan
program, 5 million undergraduate students will see increased costs for
their college education. Again, the Republicans are asking a generation
of Americans who did not run up our debt to pay the cost of reducing
the deficit.
The message is simple. If your parents are wealthy, you can expect
the finest education anywhere in the world. However, if you are from a
working class family you can expect to work harder, make less, and have
no hope of a college education unless you can manage to work full-time
while you go to school just to pay the interest on your college debt.
This is the most profound attack on the American dream in over 20
years. By eliminating the opportunity of a college education, the
Republicans are sentencing millions of young Americans to the McJob
market: low pay, no benefits, no potential for growth.
In essence, the cuts in higher education equal an attack on the
standard of living for every American. A less
[[Page H 8353]]
educated society demands less in the terms of salary and cheap labor
results in mega-profits. We are no longer in the era of sending jobs
overseas for cheap labor, the Republicans are attempting to grow their
own cheap labor right here in the United States by ensuring that the
children of the well-off get educated and the children off the middle
class and working class become the cheap labor force of the future.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, in 1935 Thomas Wolfe said, America, it is a
fabulous country. It is the only country where miracles not only happen
but they happen all the time.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I have lived an American miracle. I began my
adult life as a mother at 18, mother of two by 21, and my husband and I
struggled with the problems that ordinary people all over this country
are facing. We know first hand what it is like to be in a job market
without any real skills, to go without health insurance, to have a
table full of bills that add up to more money than there is in the
checkbook. Yet today I have both undergraduate and law degrees, and I
have had the opportunity to serve my community at all levels in
government.
What happened? Hard work and lots of it. But hard work was not enough
for me or for many other people in this country. Without the helping
hand of student loans and grants, my college education would have been
out of my reach. My husband and I could not afford it. My parents were
not in a position to help me. My father was a mailman, my mother was a
homemaker, ordinary people without resources to contribute to my
education. Financial aid was the key to my success.
Of course now, as a Member of Congress, I can easily pay for my
children's education. In fact, all 435 Members of this body can pony up
the money necessary for college tuition. In fact, these cuts we are
discussing will not hurt the children of the people who are vigorously
defending them.
It is also interesting to note that many of the individuals who
support these cuts took help from these very programs when they were on
the way up. What hypocrisy. I guess it is easy to pull up the ladder of
success once you and your children are safely on top.
But what about students like me, the children of mailmen, of
autoworkers, of waitresses, of cabbies, of ordinary people all over
this country who want so very much for those kids?
Mr. Chairman, we must keep the doors of educational opportunity open.
Miracles are waiting to happen.
{time} 1545
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say I have to marvel at some of the
comments coming from the other side of the aisle. one would think that
we have in fact defunded or we are proposing to eliminate funding for
worthy and needy college bound students, when nothing could be further
from the truth. What we are actually talking about here is increasing
access for needy young people in America to a college education.
Now, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter stood just a moment ago
and explained I thought very thoroughly, very patiently, that we are
increasing in this bill funding for the Pell Grant Program. In fact, we
are providing the largest maximum Pell grants in the history of the
country, $2,440 per student.
We are also in this bill making sure, of course, that the Perkins
Loan Program, the revolving loan program, continues in existence. That
program has $6 billion in assets already in it. Assuming that the
default rate stays at a reasonable level, that program should continue
for a considerable length of time, in fact in perpetuity. Loans are
made by the schools participating in this program. and, frankly, we
have over 2,000 schools participating in the Perkins program today.
All we are doing here in response to the amendment of the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is, frankly, acceding to a budget
recommendation made by the administration, which proposed to eliminate
the capital contribution to the Perkins Loan Program.
We also want to stress, again, Mr. Chairman, that we have attempted
to be responsive in the preparation of this particular bill. Chairman
Porter cited earlier that the bill fully funds the supplemental
education opportunities grants at the President's budget request and at
the 1995 level. The bill also fully funds the work study program at the
President's request and the 1995 level. The bill fully funds the TRIO
program, which is designed to assist minority and disadvantaged
students, at the President's request and the 1995 level.
Taken together, that adds up to over $7 billion in student
assistance. It is all grant assistance, not loans, that have to be
repaid. We can stand today and say to our Democratic colleagues that in
fact we have made a good faith effort here to increase access to a
college education. We have provided again the largest maximum increase
in Pell grants in history, and, frankly, the gentlewoman's amendment
should be defeated in the face of this overwhelming evidence that no
needy, qualified young person who is college bound is going to go
without Federal assistance should they qualify.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the full committee got before us and he
gave us some mind-boggling numbers. Let us reduce it to something a
little more understandable. There are a few people who did not make it
into his scale. There are 2,600 young people in the State of Oregon
getting State student grants this year who will not get those grants
next year because we are zeroing out that program. That is 2,600
Oregonians.
That is mirrored time and time again around the country. State
student incentive grants are gone. They are zeroed out. They can go
over and apply for the increased Pell grants. We heard a lot about the
increased Pell grants. It is partially true. They are increasing the
amount of the grant, but there are an estimated 221,000 students who
would be eligible under this year's income guidelines, middle-income
kids, who will not be eligible under their new guidelines.
So yes, those lucky few who still get the grants will get a little
bit more, but 221,000 middle-income American kids, scholastically
qualified to go to college, will not get help with Pell grants next
year because of changes they are making in the program. Seven hundred
fifty-seven thousand Perkins loan kids are put at risk because of the
changes we are making in the program.
I got student loans, many of you got student loans. Let us remember
back to those distant days. There are others here who are much more
wealthy, they never needed student loans. Try and have a little
compassion. Try and understand the plight of the average American
family. I know it is hard when you are at $133,600 a year and you live
in the cocoon of Washington, DC to understand average American
families. But just try. They need this help so their kids can do a
little better, like we did.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, yes, in the words of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham], there really is a difference in
philosophy, and nothing has made it clearer than the debate we have
seen over this amendment, and in fact through the entire bill. We have
heard people say ``Cut the bureaucrats.''
Mr. Chairman, we are cutting kids; we are not cutting bureaucrats.
These are loans to middle-income kids, families who are striving, who
are working hard to find the American dream. We are not cutting
bureaucrats. Let us tell it to Denise, let us tell it to Sebastian in
my district, let us tell it to the million or more youngsters who are
not getting a student loan as a result of our actions today. And the
best is yet to come, because we have seen promises in the budget, in
the reconciliation bill of the leadership, that would cut
[[Page H 8354]]
even more deeply into student loan programs.
We are talking about the American dream. We are talking about
investing in our youngsters. We are talking about giving youngsters the
opportunity to get that education, to work hard, so they can be
something.
Government should not be a handout, government should be a hand up. I
cannot think of any program that fulfills that philosophy. Oh, yes, the
distinguished chairman of the committee said that we have the gall, the
audacity, to fight for these programs. Yes, we have the gall, yes, we
have the audacity, to stand up for working families, to stand up for
their children, to stand up for the future of our country.
Let us be sure that our student loan program is protected. Let us be
sure that we continue to establish our priorities and invest in our
young people and our future.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the comments by the gentleman from
Oregon, I would just like the gentleman to know that not everyone on
this side of the aisle is completely heartless and insensitive. I am
currently supporting my 19, soon-to-be-20-year-old son, who is
attending a vocational education program in the Washington metropolitan
area, so I think I know a little bit about the kind of financial
commitment it takes to help support a dependent child obtain a career
education.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to say that, again, in
cutting the State student incentive grant program, in eliminating the
capital contribution to the Perkins program, we have adopted proposals
made by the President and his administration to terminate those two
particular programs.
Overall, Mr. Chairman, in this bill, the funding in this bill,
coupled with student loan entitlements, will make available to students
$35 billion in student financial assistance in 1996. We think that
demonstrates strong support for student aid. I urge Members to oppose
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to an agreement with the majority,
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, because there could
not possibly be enough resources allocated in this bill to make up for
the cuts.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this bill contains legislative provisions concerning
the new direct student loan program that would severely damage the
Department of Education's ability to manage that program effectively;
and that constitutes blatant protection for special interests at the
taxpayers' expense.
The bill cuts student loan administrative funds from $550 million to
$320 million, and reserves half of that for the guarantee agencies.
Since the guarantee agencies were projected to receive only $156
million based on this year's ACA formula and next year's projected loan
volume, they are guaranteed a $4 million increase by this bill, and it
could be more. Meanwhile, funds available for the Department are cut
from $394 to $160 million. That's a cut of $234 million, or 60 percent.
The Department says it could easily live with a $100 million cut, and
perhaps it could absorb somewhat more. But a 60 percent cut is nothing
more than a clear attempt to totally gut the administration of direct
loans. This is a stealth attack on that program carried out in this
appropriations bill where it does not belong, before the proper
authorizing committee has considered the issue.
Now when we are cutting everything else, why on Earth are we
guaranteeing an increase of at least $4 million, and possibly much
more, for these guarantee agencies? Is this the Guarantee Agency
Protection Act? This is ridiculous.
Chairman Porter argued in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter yesterday
that guaranteed loans, with 69 percent of the total loan volume, would
be managed with only half of the administrative funds, namely this $160
million reserved for the guarantee agencies. I respect my colleague so
highly that I know he has been terribly misled by someone, for he would
never knowingly put out such total claptrap. Here is what guarantee
agencies get in addition to the $160 million in administrative cost
allowance. They get a 1 percent fee from borrowers, totalling about
$170 million next year. By the way, that is not scored by CBO as a cost
of guaranteed loans, even though the Federal Government gets to keep
that amount on direct loans. They get the interest on their $1.8
billion of taxpayer-provided reserve funds. At 6 percent, that would be
about $108 million. That's also not scored as a cost of guaranteed
loans, even though the taxpayers could take back that entire $1.8
billion under 100 percent direct lending. They get to keep 27 percent
of whatever they collect on loans after they have gone into default.
That's about $300 million a year. By the way, it also gives them an
incentive to allow loans to go into default. Finally, they make untold
profits as secondary market players by arbitraging with tax free bonds
at cost to the taxpayers of $2.3 billion over 5 years, also not scored
as a cost of guaranteed loans even though it would not happen with
direct loans.
All told, the guarantee agencies support their 8,000 employees with
revenues of about $638 million plus their arbitraging profits.
Actually, 5,000 employees are supported by the $638 million, an average
of $127,600 per employee. But these agencies aren't the servicers of
most guaranteed loans at all. The lenders do that using part of the
interest paid by students. These agencies are nothing but middlemen who
would be completely unnecessary under direct lending. Their entire $638
million plus cost could be wiped out. So, the claim that $160 million
of their funds represents the total cost of administering guaranteed
loans is an outrageous distortion.
Now let's look at the Department's funds. Of the $394 million the
Department was to get next year, it says $200 million was for the
guaranteed loan program--to administer the default payment system, the
loan application and management system, and the collection system. By
the way, the recent CBO scoring actually counted that money as a cost
of direct loans rather than of guaranteed loans--an inexcusable plain
error.
Now, if the department has only $160 million to administer both
guaranteed and direct loans, including the entire cost of direct
loans--even the servicing--there's no way that can be done without
gutting direct loans. That's the real purpose of these provisions, and
we should not be fighting that battle on this bill.
The second purpose is to protect the guarantee agencies. If that's
not obvious from the provision increasing their ACA to $160 million,
it's obvious from the provision preventing the Secretary from taking
back any of their reserve funds. With direct lending growing, we will
not need as many guarantee agencies. Why prevent us from taking tack
the reserves when any of them go out of business? This is blatant
special interest protection, and we should be ashamed to be putting it
in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Andrews] and I were
going to offer an amendment to eliminate these terrible provisions.
Because he cannot be here today, and because we have not had enough
time to educate the Members about these issues, I will not offer that
amendment. But I do urge the committee to reconsider this issue, and
change these provisions in conference.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time simply to try to tie up some loose
ends on the last discussion. By all means, cut the deficit. By all
means, for the 105th time we say: ``We agree, cut duplicative programs
and cut waste.'' But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say to
the American people, ``Oh, we are going to have sweeping change
throughout this country,'' and then say, ``Oh, but, by the way, do not
worry about it, folks; nobody will feel anything when we make these
major cuts.''
The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations says
let
[[Page H 8355]]
us quit taking money from the taxpayers. The fact is that the education
programs we have been describing have been our Nation's effort to give
money back to those working taxpayers. Evidently our friends on the
majority side do not want to do that, at least not as much as we used
to. Instead, they want to give billions of dollars back to the truly
needy corporations of this world, everybody from AT&T, Texaco,
International Minerals, Xerox, Union Camp, Panhandle, Grace, you name
it. They want to give them back billions of dollars, because they want
to eliminate the corporate minimum tax. Even though companies make
billions of dollars in profits, they do not pay zip in taxes. So you
put corporations ahead of students and working families. I do not think
that makes much sense.
We are also told, ``Oh, we are increasing opportunity.'' Very
interesting. The last time I looked, the discretionary funds in this
bill went from $72 billion last year to $62 billion this year. That is
a $10 billion reduction. In addition to that, in the reconciliation
bill which you intend to do, it is to take away another $10 billion in
student aid and raise the cost to the average student getting help
under these programs by 20 percent over their lifetime.
You say, ``Oh, we didn't cut Pell.'' Thank God for small favors. But
the fact is that the Pell program under this budget is still in real
dollar terms $300 below where it was in 1991.
The reason we are upset with these reductions in education is because
this is what has happened in the budget since 1980. In 1980, what we
spent on our budget on investment, and I mean investment in kids by way
of education, investment in infrastructure by way of decent roads and
bridges, investment in science so we could make the economy grow and
create better opportunity for everybody, investment was 16 cents out of
every budget dollar in 1980, before Ronald Reagan walked into the White
House.
{time} 1600
By 1992 it had been cut down to 9 percent. That is about a 40-percent
reduction as the share of our national budget. That is a mistake. We
are eating our own seed corn. When you deny student loans to kids, that
is exactly what you are doing. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish, and
it is cruel to boot. We urge Members to vote no on this bill.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. Chairman, last year I introduced H.R. 1337, legislation which
provided competitive grants for public secondary schools wishing to
increase their academic year.
Mr. Chairman, on this floor we debate the question of funding in
education. It is, of course, not only a question of funds. Our students
can do no more than we challenge them to do. America has the shortest
school day and the shortest school year in the industrialized world.
The language that was included in the elementary and secondary schools
reauthorization bill provided for a Federal program to allow school
districts to begin experimenting with a longer school year.
That legislation included an explicit authorization for $90 million
for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may have been necessary in the
ensuing 4 years to begin experimentation with a longer school year.
In title II of the bill we are currently debating, $842 million is
authorized for school improvement programs. While I regret the
Committee on Appropriations was unable to specifically allocate money
for this program, I would like to make it clear that this is not a
reflection of a lack of support for the authorization that this
Congress voted upon last year but, rather, a simple reflection of the
reality of difficult fiscal constraints that the committee currently
faces.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that efforts are under way in
the other body to include a limited appropriation which would enable
this program to commence. Should this occur, it is my hope that the
House conferees, on a bipartisan basis, will consider the importance of
extending the school year, as evidenced by last year's authorization,
and carefully consider appropriating a limited amount of funds.
Mr. Chairman, in my own district in the community in which I live, in
Englewood, NJ, we have begun exactly this program. We have found that
during the summer months much of what students learned in the preceding
year is lost. Indeed, studies have found that up to a third of the new
school year is lost simply refreshing students about what they forgot
from
previous instruction.
I believe that experimentation to extend this year and, indeed, to
lengthen the day would do a great deal as, unfortunately, our German
and Japanese competitors have already found, to improve instruction.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, like to include in the Record the
authorizing language from last year and a full statement of my own in
support of a longer school year.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Longer School Day
Program.
While we have spent a good deal of time over the past few years
debating the quality of what we teach in the schools, we have paid
little attention to the far simpler question of whether we are spending
enough time teaching. I was pleased when Congress finally gave serious
consideration to lengthening the school year in the United States so
that our students can compete on equal footing with their counterparts
in other countries.
In 1991, Congress authorized the National Education Commission on
Time and Learning to conduct a comprehensive review of the relationship
between time and learning in the Nation's schools. The report released
last year confirms that the United States will not maintain its
economic superiority unless we provide our children with a competitive
education by reforming the structure of or school year.
The report specifically cites that the current American educational
system consists of 6 hour days where students spend less than half of
their school day studying core academic subjects. It also notes that in
order to graduate from high school, the United States currently
requires a 180-day school year. In contrast, our counterparts in
Germany have a 210-day schedule and Japan imposes a 240-day school
year.
The International Educational Association conducted a study which
compared the academic skills of the top 1 percent of all 12th graders.
Those from the United States ranked dead last. Their study also found
that among 15 developed and less developed countries, students from the
United States scored at or near the bottom in the areas of Advanced
Algebra, Functions/Calculus and Geometry.
These numbers show how woefully inadequate our school system is in
preparing our children to compete in the global economy. American
students quite simply are not learning what they should be. The Longer
School Year program would establish a grant program for public
secondary schools who increase the academic day to 7 hours and the
school year to 200 days.
A longer school day and school year clearly makes sense in a society
where in 90 percent of the two-parent families, both parents work.
Keeping kids off the streets and in schools should be an especially
welcome relief to parents who cannot afford after-school day care or
summer camp. Schools also provide a safe haven for students who come
from disintegrated families, are malnourished, or are susceptible to
drug abuse and violence.
At a time when international tests are showing American students
scoring well below students from other countries; a time
when corporate leaders are beginning to complain about a lack of
skilled workers; and a time when we are clearly falling behind our
economic rivals in the world marketplace, we must question whether we
are doing kids a favor by granting them a long summer vacation.
My program would establish competitive grants for public secondary
schools wishing to increase their academic day to at least 7 hours and
their school year to at least 200 days. We are unquestionably doing our
children a disservice by not requiring more time in school. It is time
for Congress to send out a positive message to our Nation's youth.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
commend him for his efforts. I can personally say, as a former school
board member in my home communities and two-term school board
president, that two essential reforms, based on my experience, would be
the gentleman's efforts to lengthen the school day and also efforts in
local communities across the country to reduce class size. So I thank
the gentleman for bringing this program to my attention and to the
attention of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter],
and the other members of the subcommittee. Again, I commend the
gentleman
[[Page H 8356]]
for his longstanding commitment to this issue.
I can tell the gentleman that the committee's decision not to
specifically allocate funds for this program is not an indication of a
lack of support for its merits. Should the other body appropriate money
for this program, the gentleman has my assurance and the assurance of
Chairman Porter and the other conferees that we will give the program
every consideration that it deserves.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support,
for his words and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter],
my friend.
I believe that, if the other body were to decide to invest these
sums, it would be an important statement to local communities. All of
our States and communities differ. A longer school day or year might
make sense in some States more than in others. But it is an experiment
that is worth pursuing, as indeed this Congress voted on a bipartisan
basis in the authorization bill.
I thank the gentleman again for his comments.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett],
my good friend and colleague.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I was tied up in some meetings today and was unable to
be on the floor during debate on title II of H.R. 2127. I had hoped to
be able to have a few minutes to discuss some concerns that I had about
the funding provided in the bill for some of the various programs that
address the health care delivery needs of rural America.
I would like to associate myself with some of the comments that were
made earlier by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and some of my other rural
colleagues.
I have a statement to submit for the Record expressing my particular
concern about the funding which is eliminated for the Office of Rural
Health Policy and a letter addressing the importance of that funding
from Dr. Keith Mueller of the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
Mr. Chairman, I insert those materials in the Record, as follows:
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express to Chairman
Porter and the rest of the House my concern about one area of funding
eliminated by this bill--that for the Federal Office of Rural Health
Policy.
The Appropriations Committee stripped the Office of Rural Health
Policy of $9.4 million, essentially its entire budget. Supposedly, we
are told, the office may continue to exist because the salaries for its
staff are funded under another line item. But no one can tell me that
an office without programs to administer is going to survive, and that
means rural health care takes another shot in the back of the head.
The $9.4 million for the ORHP is a mere drop in the bucket of this
$256 billion bill. That funding can easily be found, but those of us
concerned about the ongong struggle of rural health care are hampered
in offering amendments to restore that funding--we run up against the
hurdles of dealing with unauthorized programs on appropriations bills
and into the brick wall of this very urban-dominated House.
Attempts to assure me that the functions of the ORHP are duplicative
and its programs will be picked up elsewhere are, in reality, no
assurance whatsoever. The office was established for the very reason
that those other programs for years and years ignored and overlooked
the needs of the rural health care.
Let me share with my colleagues comments from one of the leading
experts of rural health care, Dr. Keith Mueller, who has been a
constant and reliable source of information for this Congress in recent
years because of the research programs he oversees at the University of
Nebraska Medical Center, some of which admittedly, are a result of
federal funding.
Dr. Mueller writes:
I sympathize with the imperative to eliminate unnecessary
bureaucracies, but the ORHP does not fall into that
classification. Contrary to the perception stated in [the
report], the ORHP does much more than support state
bureaucracies. Less than one full time equivalent position is
devoted to the important task of assistance to state offices
of rural health. The more important roles of ORHP are direct
assistance to rural communities (telemedicine [for example]),
developing a rural health agenda, maintaining
resources for rural health analysis, monitoring regulatory
activities to assess rural impact, and providing policy
relevant research to a wide audience. The loss of these
functions of the ORHP would be a tremendous loss to rural
America.
At the proper time, Mr. Chairman, I will ask that Dr. Mueller's
entire letter be included in the Record.
This money has a tangible and important impact on improving and
maintaining access to health care for more than one-fourth of this
country's population. That's a fair return on our tax dollars, and it
should meet the test of programs worth retaining.
If today we can't get the amendment passed to restore ORHP funding,
we will turn to the other body for help, and I want to urge Chairman
Porter to then look on this funding favorably in conference.
University of Nebraska,
Medical Center,
Omaha, NE, July 25, 1995.
Hon. Bill Barrett,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Barrett: I am writing to ask you to
consider supporting the Gunderson/Poshard amendment to
restore funding for the Federal Office of Rural Health
Policy. The programs of ORHP benefit rural America in many
ways, including direct benefits to Nebraska.
I sympathize with the imperative to eliminate unnecessary
bureaucracies, but the ORHP does not fall into that
classification. Contrary to the perception stated in the
Chairman's mark of the budget resolution in the House, the
ORHP does much more than support state bureaucracies. Less
than one full time equivalent position is devoted to the
important task of assistance to state offices of rural
health. The much more important roles of ORHP are direct
assistance to rural communities (telemedicine), developing a
rural health agenda (National Advisory Committee),
maintaining resources for rural health analysis (national
clearinghouse), monitoring regulatory activities to assess
rural impacts, and providing policy relevant research to a
wide audience (rural health research centers). The loss of
these functions of the ORHP would be a tremendous loss to
rural America.
The ORHP has been responsible for a special grants program
to assist rural health care providers and communities in
developing telemedicine systems. The grants awarded thus far
include one in Kearney, Nebraska. The grants make it possibly
for rural providers to initiate telemedicine systems now
rather than wait for urban-based systems to possible extend
such services, and terms of use, later. The ORHP provides
technical assistance to grantees, and has been instrumental
in advancing our knowledge of how to use this technology
effectively.
The National Advisory Committee on Rural Health, staffed by
the ORHP, has produced annual reports that identify critical
issues in rural health that are affected by federal policies.
The most recent report focused on potential changes in
Medicare policies, especially reimbursement for health
providers. The Committee helps researchers and policy makers
alike anticipate need for further analysis and policy
development. Another valuable resource is the Rural Health
Clearinghouse, which provides information to rural health
providers, researchers, and community leaders in an on-line
modality.
The cornerstone of the ORHP programs, in my view, is the
research center program. The ORHP provides modest support
to develop and sustain rural health research centers. The
ORHP also helps those centers develop research agendas and
produce reports that are written for the policy maker
audience. Those reports address pressing policy issues
with research results that can help improve policy. A few
examples are:
``The National Health Service Corps: Rural Physician
Service and Retention,'' University of Washington, WAMI Rural
Health Research Center
``The Feasibility of Health Care Cooperatives in Rural
America: Learning from the Past to Prepare for the Future,''
University of North Carolina (UNC) Rural Health Research
Program
``A Predictive Model for Retention of Rural Nurses,''
University of North Dakota Rural Health Research Center
``Access of Rural Medicaid Beneficiaries to Mental Health
Services,'' Maine Rural Health Research Center
``Health Care Reform for Rural Medicaid: Finding Solutions
with Limited Resources,'' New York Rural Health Research
Center
``A DRG-Based Service Limitation System for Rural Primary
Care Hospitals,'' Minnesota Rural Health Research Center.
The University of Nebraska Center for Rural Health Research
received ORHP support for two years under this program,
extended with special awards for two years to produce a
series of Policy Briefs that critique health reform proposals
from a rural perspective. We would compete for the next cycle
of center support from ORHP if this program continues. The
ORHP has supported, through the budget for the Maine Center,
some of the work of the Rural Health Delivery Expert Panel of
the Rural Policy Research Institute, on which I serve.
I cannot imagine how rural health would continue to have a
voice within the Department of Health and Human Services
without the ORHP. This Office is a true success story,
developing programs that make important contributions
directly to rural citizens and directly to you and others who
[[Page H 8357]]
must make important policy decisions. Please support the Gunderson/
Poshard amendment to restore funding. Even with rural
programs, there are lower priorities than this Office. I
would be pleased to comment further or answer any questions.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Keith J. Mueller,
Professor and Director, Nebraska Center for Rural Health
Research.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in response to the
comments made by the distinguished ranking member earlier, I would just
like to point out for the other Members that approximately 30 percent
of the spending cuts that were made to the various programs under the
jurisdiction of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee
were made in fact in the context of the emergency supplemental
appropriations and rescissions package. I think it is important to note
that for the record since that legislation has now become law with the
bipartisan support of both bodies, both Houses of the Congress and, of
course, the President's cooperation and signature.
amendment offered by mr. cunningham
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham: Page 42, beginning on
line 13, strike ``That notwithstanding'' and all that follows
through the comma on line 20.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] and a Member opposed
will each be recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized in opposition
to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that Members on the other side of the aisle
do have some legitimate issues. One of the issues, in my opinion, is
that while we attempt to move this money back to the States that I know
an example in the State of California, the devastating defense cuts
have cost us nearly a million jobs. We have little things called gnat
catchers and spotted owls that have affected those positions. We have
had natural disasters, and the people in the State of California, on a
State level and a Federal level, are taxed at pretty much an extreme
rate.
It is very difficult to pass a school bond to build a school or to
provide for that instruction.
When we affect education, we also affect, because it is forward-
funded, not only the funds in the future but the funds that go down
right now.
We have to provide a transition for those. This particular amendment
helps that. It also sets the stage for a direction where we can
reallocate and put a little different priority and put some of those
dollars back into education. The amendment improves the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill that
deletes legislation language in the bill that prohibits impact aid
funding to schools for what they call military B kids.
Impact aid, for the Members, if you are a military recipient of funds
and you register, say, in the State of Illinois and you move to the
State of California, you still pay your State taxes. You shop at the
commissary; you shop at the exchange. All those taxes go not to the
State where your children go to school. You impact that school, but
they do not get any money back for it. So what we are doing is shifting
the money.
All this amendment does is, in the current language it restricts it
only to impact aid. Impact aid students are those students that live on
base with their parents. But the majority of Members, both Republicans
and Democrats that represent districts, those military families live
off base and do not qualify for that funding. This amendment eliminates
that.
Second, it sets the stage. I have got two of my colleagues that, one
is the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], the other one is the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], from the other side of the aisle,
who have been bulldogs on this issue. They have fought tooth, hook, and
nail to preserve something that is very important, not just in their
districts but around this country.
What it does, it is also going to allow us later on in an amendment
to put over $18 million in authority into BA. We are going to put $15
million more back into Eisenhower grants for teacher training. We are
asking our teachers to increase it. We are also going to put another
$100 million in BA into the vocational education programs.
This amendment does not affect it, but it is part of a series of
amendments that we are going to offer to try and help the gentleman
with some of his reservations and put the money back into education.
Mr. Christensen and Mr. Edwards have been tigers in this field. I want
to commend Members from both sides of the aisle in helping us with
this.
What it is going to do is allow us to take that impact of those
students and put some of it back in.
I would also like to thank my colleague from California, Mr. Riggs,
who has also been fighting not only on impact aid but these other areas
to fight for that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy to
clarify one particular point with the gentleman regarding his
amendment.
I would like to clarify that his amendment does not affect the hold
harmless prohibition in the bill?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has zero effect, no
effect on hold harmless.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not eat up the whole 10 minutes.
I think this is an important piece of legislation. I think it is a
piece of legislation that Members on both sides of the aisle will
support or can support by taking some of those dollars and allowing the
impact of military families on the school systems to help relieve those
school systems and also help the teacher training and also come back
and help the vocational education program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me simply say that I do not want to make a Federal case out of
this. Again, while I have misgivings about it, I will not push it to a
roll call.
Let me simply explain to the Members of the House the situation we
are in. It appears that at this point that what the gentleman is asking
will in fact result in a negligible impact on a lot of districts. We
are not quite certain, frankly, because we do not yet have an official
computer run from the agency or CBO or anybody else.
The problem is that, at least I feel that there is a much bigger
impact on the local school districts with A's than there is with B's,
because you have a double loss of property tax base with the folks
involved.
I also would point out that whether or not this turns out to be a
reasonable balance depends upon a further contribution from the defense
bill. And while I expect that that is going to occur, we do not have
any official certainty that it is going to occur.
Mr. Chairman, I am minimally enthused about the gentleman's
amendment, to put it politely, for the moment. But as I say, while I
have misgivings about it, I am not going to push it to a vote. I
understand the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is going to accept
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minority ranking
member for yielding.
I would like, if I could, to have a discussion with the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cunningham], who has worked very hard, the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Christensen], and others of us, trying to find money for impact aid.
I do want to be clear. This amendment does not add a single dollar to
the impact aid program that has not
[[Page H 8358]]
already been appropriated in the defense appropriations bill or
elsewhere. If that is correct, I must say I am personally disappointed,
because at one point I thought there was an understanding that some of
this money was going to be directed to impact aid. And if it has not,
we keep going on promises made and yet no action seems to occur to find
any new dollars for impact aid.
{time} 1615
If I am wrong, I stand corrected, but to be clear, this amendment
does not add any new appropriations to impact aid; is that correct?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the frustration of
the gentleman from Texas. I also have gone through a lot of frustration
on this particular issue.
The reason that I brought up the impact later on and what we are
going to do is, first of all, this amendment does not add direct
dollars, but it gives the flexibility to move. If the gentleman's
particular district has impacted A's or B's, it gives it that
flexibility, and all this initial stage is doing is trying to remove
it.
The second aspect of it, the $35 million from the defense
authorization bill, I have been guaranteed, I would say to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], that this is going to happen and
it is going to go into the general fund.
Mr. Chairman, I am also supporting an amendment of the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards] later on, from other sources to impact, to put the
$23 million into that fund also. It is kind of a series of packages,
but I also understand the gentleman's reservations.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the good
intentions and I hope something will come about, but as of now, this
bill cuts impact aid to military children's education by over $40
million.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the
gentleman indicates that he is guaranteed that the $35 million in the
defense bill will materialize. That requires a little matter of having
to pass the House, pass the Senate, go into conference; and frankly, at
this point, I do not know if the defense bill is going to be finished
before we leave here for the August recess.
The gentleman may have a greater comfort level in the security of
that guarantee than I have.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the problem. The way this House works
sometimes boggles all of us. As far as the scoring, when they did away
with the old system and they went to the A system only, the formula was
a little different. We are going to make sure in the future legislation
that the formulas agree, so that we do have strong confidence that it
is a positive impact.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being able to be on the
floor for the discussion. I strongly support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think that everyone should understand that I probably
have more impacted schools and students than many in the House. I have
a vital personal interest in the Impact Aid Program.
I believe that when we finish our work on this bill, we will have
achieved 95 percent of last year's funding level for Impact Aid. I
believe we will have protected severely impacted schools in an ironclad
way, and I believe that the Senate mark on Impact Aid will be at about
98 percent of last year's level.
Mr. Chairman, we have a very good chance of ending up with very
little reduction in the program at a time when cuts are being made in
many other areas. I believe we have done the best possible job that we
can do on this. I will certainly be putting it at a high priority in
conference, Mr. Chairman, and I think everyone will be pretty well
satisfied, when we get finished, that the job has been done properly.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the reason for part of that is, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs.
Mink], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], and the coalition
that is supportive of this issue. I would like to personally thank them
in public.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] for his comments and commitments to impact aid. I know he has a
genuine interest in that effort and has worked tirelessly on behalf of
the program.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to make the record clear to people throughout
this country and to Members of Congress that, after speeches on the
floor by the majority leader several months ago and several other
Members of the majority party, this bill, as of today, cuts $47 million
out of education funds for the children of military families, children
whose parents may be serving overseas, children who may not see their
parents months on end.
Mr. Chairman, I hope to have the chance to continue to work with the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Cunningham], but I do not mind saying I am disappointed that, as
of today, this bill cuts $47 million out of that terribly important
education program.
Mr. Chairman, children whose parents have been willing to put on the
uniform and fight for our country deserve the commitment of this
Congress.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Armey], the Speaker, and I have met and they have
promised me their commitment to this. This whole package is part of
those pledges that you talked about and that the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter] spoke of.
I do not think the gentleman from Illinois can do any more for us. I
wish we could do more, and in the future, I promise to work with the
gentleman to even make it ``more better,'' as they say.
Mr. Chairman, I also understand the gentleman's concerns. The
gentleman has my tireless pledge to make sure that that happens, and I
have the pledge of the Speaker and the majority leader to help do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by gentleman
from California [Mr. Cunningham].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter], my subcommittee chairman, in a brief colloquy with regard to
continued funding for the National Education Goals Panel.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Illinois knows, we have received
a very recent communication dated, actually, August 1, a letter from a
bipartisan group of six State Governors, to the gentleman from Illinois
and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. Chairman, I briefly would like to read this letter for the
record. It says:
Following the historic 1989 education summit in
Charlottesville, Virginia, the Governors and President Bush
agreed on education goals for the Nation and created the
National Education Goals Panel as an accountability mechanism
to monitor and report on the Nation's progress towards
achieving the goals. We believe that the panel continues to
play a significant role in assisting States as they work to
improve educational performance for all students.
The Goals Panel members have recently initiated new efforts
to collect and distribute information on the development of
world class academic standards and assessment of student
achievement at the State level. This kind of information will
fill an essential need for State policymakers.
While we recognize the difficult decisions that you face,
we strongly urge you to continue funding for the National
Education Goals Panel in the appropriations process.''
The letter is signed by Governors Bayh of Indiana; Hunt of North
Carolina; Romer of Colorado; Engler of Michigan; Rowland of
Connecticut; and Whitman of New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, and as the concern of the Governors
indicates, our bill presently eliminates funding
[[Page H 8359]]
for the National Education Goals Panel. We have acknowledged the letter
from the Governors today, and the important role, as they suggest, that
the national Education Goals Panel plays in helping States develop and
implement academic standards within their own States.
The Goals Panel is made up primarily of Governors and State
legislators for the primary purpose of helping States determine how to
best implement academic standards based on the needs of their students.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] whether
he will be able to commit to restoring funds for the National Education
Goals Panel in conference and work with me as, a fellow conferee, to
get the Senate to restore these funds?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I received a
call from Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, the State neighboring my
State of Illinois, and had a discussion about the panel. I will do the
best I possibly can to restore funds for the National Education Goals
Panel in the conference.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr.
Castle], our friend and colleague and the former Governor of Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, but I could not support
this colloquy more, and all Members should.
Mr. Chairman, this panel has ultimately set goals for America which
are extraordinary. The Governors support it. It is across all of the
States. Just because there has been some confusion about what is in the
goals, it does not mean that the panel should not continue to exist.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tremendous effort by the gentleman
from California. I am sure that every single Governor in the country
and every child in America does as well.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we look forward to
working with the governors and the National Education Goals Panel as we
prepare our education reform block grant bill in the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, I include the letter and newspaper editorial for the
Record:
August 1, 1995.
Hon. Bob Livingston,
Chair, Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Livingston: Following the historic 1989
education summit in Charlottesville, the Governors and
President Bush agreed on education goals for the nation and
created the National Education Goals Panel as an
accountability mechanism to monitor and report on the
nation's progress toward achieving the goals. We believe that
the Panel continues to play a significant role in assisting
states as they work to improve educational performance for
all students.
The Goals Panel members have recently initiated new efforts
to collect and distribute information on the development of
world class academic standards and the assessment of student
achievement at the state level. This kind of information will
fill an essential need for state policymakers.
While we recognize the difficult decisions that you will
face, we strongly urge you to continue funding for the
National Education Goals Panel in the appropriations process.
Sincerely,
Gov. Evan Bayh,
State of Indiana.
Gov. James B. Hunt Jr.,
State of North Carolina.
Gov. Roy Romer,
State of Colorado.
Gov. John Engler,
State of Michigan.
Gov. John G. Rowland,
State of Connecticut.
Gov. Christine T. Whiteman,
State of New Jersey.
Just Plain Dumb
(By David S. Broder)
Burlington, Vt.--Louis V. Gerstner Jr., the chairman of IBM
and the man who has engineered its recent turnaround, had a
message for the nation's governors when he appeared before
their annual summer meeting here this week. Warning that real
reform requires resources, Gerstner said, ``True change
agents put their money where their mouth is.''
That message has broad application, not only to the
governors but to the self-styled revolutionaries in
Washington, who often appear to be letting their budgetary
goals predetermine the way they are reshaping programs and
agencies.
But there is particular pertinence for one small program
that has been a bipartisan project of the governors and now
is threatened by small-minded economizers in Congress.
``A decade ago, farsighted governors of both parties
including both Bill Clinton of Arkansas and his would-be 1985
Republican opponent, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, launched a
program to raise the achievment standards in American
shcools. Their ``national goals'' effort was embraced by
President Bush in 1989 at his ``education summit in
Charlottesville, Va. Last year, it was written into ``Goals
2000'' legislation by Congress with strong support from
President Clinton.
A small but critical piece of the law was the creation of
the National Education Goals Panel to ride herd on the
project.
Now the House Republicans have moved to kill the entire
Goals 2000 program, including the $2.7 million for the goals
panel. Even before they heard Gerstner, the governors were
saying that strangling this effort is dumb.
That is the view not just of long-time education advocates
such as North Carolina's Jim Hunt and Colorado's Roy Romer,
both Democrats, but of conservative reformers such as
Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson and Michigan's John Engler, both
Republicans.
Thompson told me that because so few of the governors who
met with Bush in 1989 to launch this campaign are still
around, and because few businessmen are as committed to the
cause of Gerstner, ``we need to jump-start this effort
again.''
Thompson and Romer both acknowledge that whether they like
it or not, the federal grants to states for Goals 2000
programs are likely victims of the budget-cutters. But the
goals panel is, in Thompson's words, ``the catalyst'' and the
forum that is needed to keep the effort going.
The governors' original notion was a simple one. In a
competitive world, the quality of the education America's
youngsters receive is the prime determinant of the nation's
future well-being. So they set out goals for themselves.
Among others, they said, by 2000, all children would start
school ready to learn and at least 90 percent of them
would finish high school. Every graduate would have
demonstrated competence in nine basic subjects.
No one could argue with the goals. But by setting their
deadline so far in the future, Gerstner said, the governors
``left a little bit too much . . . cover'' for themselves.
And, he pointedly said, ``Goals aren't worth a damn if you
don't measure every day'' how near or far the schools are
from achieving them.
Last week, in a report that was as direct as Gerstner's
speech, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) documented
how far we are
from being able to measure that progress.
While every state but Iowa has began to develop tougher
academic standards for its students, only 13 states have
standards that are ``clear and specific enough'' to guide
curriculum development. While 33 states have or are
developing student assessments geared to those standards,
only seven states require high school seniors to meet the
standards set for 10th-, 11th- or 12th-graders in order to
graduate.
The public has become skeptical about education ``reforms''
that are designed to provide comfort for teachers or
students, instead of ensuring that knowledge and skills are
actually acquired. This effort falls into the latter
category.
The AFT wants an end to platitudes, instead of saying that
fifth-graders ``should be able to use basic science concepts
to help understand various kinds of scientific information,''
as one state does, the model should be another state's
requirement that those 10-year-olds ``should be able to
describe the basic processes of photosynthesis and
respiration and their importance to life.''
That same kind of rigor is what the governors are seeking--
and what the goals panel is all about.
Killing it would be one of the dam-best things Congress
could do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N O T I C E
Incomplete record of House proceedings. Except for concluding business which follows,
today's House proceedings will be continued in the next issue of the Record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________