[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13773-H13780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE IMPACT OF THE CUTS IN EDUCATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from South 

[[Page H 13774]]
Carolina, when he talks about $12 trillion. That is what, for the next 
hours, the members of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities will talk about. I wish we had $12 trillion to spend on 
education, but we do not. That is why our committee members are joining 
today in this special order to highlight the spending cuts that will 
happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know about $12 trillion over the next whatever 
number of years it is, but I know the impact the education cuts are 
having on my own district from the rescission bill, and the potential 
for the budget that we will ultimately end up passing, and the lost 
opportunity we will have, not just for the students who are there this 
year or next year, but for the next generation that we hope will be the 
ones who are taking our place here on this floor and taking our place 
all over the country in the medical schools and in the professions.

                             {time}   1445

  In the name of deficit reduction, the Congress is cutting the Federal 
money available for education programs, and I believe we need to 
balance our budget. However, I do not believe that we must balance it 
on the backs of those children.
  The purpose of the deficit reduction is to make America stronger, and 
we agree with that on a philosophical basis. How can we make America 
stronger if we are not willing to invest in education? Education is 
talking about the strength of America, again, not for this year, Mr. 
Speaker, but for the next 5 and 10 years, and even after that. We 
should not stand by while the Republican majority destroys the 
educational system that we have all worked hard to achieve.
  Mr. Speaker, I know in Houston we have made a solid investment in 
education and have a lot of individual students who are being 
successful, part of it because of the Federal funding that goes to the 
schools in our own district. A good example is Franklin Elementary 
School in my district, which was recognized by the U.S. Department of 
Education for its educational improvement.
  The students at Franklin made exemplary progress in the Texas 
Assessment of Academic Skills last year. In 1994, only 35 percent to 59 
percent of the student body passed the TAAS test as we call it, Texas 
Assessment for Academic Skills. In 1995, due to innovative teacher 
methods and a significant Federal investment in Franklin and the 
freedom that we had last year under title I, that school was classified 
as a recognized school where 75 percent of those children, at least up 
to 80 percent, are passing their TAAS testing. So we have a three-
quarter success rate in an inner-city school that is eligible and 
receives both bilingual funding from the State, but also title I.
  The students at Franklin are especially hurt by the cuts in title I 
from the rescission bill this year. Currently, Franklin receives about 
$200,000 in Federal title I funding. If the House-passed Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill becomes law, Franklin will lose 17 percent or 
$34,000 of those funds.
  Harris County in the State of Texas receives $81.1 million in title I 
funds now. Under the House-passed bill originally, Labor-HHS, Harris 
County would lose $13.8 million, and under the President's budget 
proposal, Harris County will receive $8 million more. So what we are 
seeing is a loss, if we add those together of the cuts, plus the 
potential of $21 million, $21.9 million in loss of Federal funding.
  We are having great success in our district. I have visited almost 
every elementary school in my district. I still have a few left that I 
go into, and I read, like a lot of Members of Congress do, and I see 
the success every day. I have an inner-city district that people say, 
oh, how can you have education success there? We have it every day, and 
it is because of the dedicated teachers and parents and administrators 
and people involved in the community.
  Mr. Speaker, do not take that success away in the name of tax cuts, 
and that is what I am pleading. I think today the members of the 
committee will join in that.
  Other educational programs hit hardest are the basic math and reading 
programs, efforts to promote safe and drug-free schools, and resources 
for State and local officials to implement higher standards in 
educational technology. Cuts in these vital programs will cause 
irreparable harm to students in our local community and as well around 
the country.
  We will be spending $4.5 billion less in 1996, almost a 20 percent of 
the total Federal aid cut in 1996 than we did in 1995. At the same 
time, local and Statewide and Nationwide enrollment trends are up. 
Again, using my own district as an example, our enrollment is up in the 
Houston Independent School District and in the Aldine School District 
and the Galena Park School District. We are not seeing declining 
enrollment. Yet we are saying, okay, you have more students, but we are 
giving you less money.

  The Republican budget eliminates also the Goals 2000 funding, 
severely undermining State and local efforts to reform elementary and 
secondary education. In the State of Texas alone, we would lose $29.2 
million in the Goals 2000, and we have already completed our planning 
and begun implementation of comprehensive reforms, as provided by Goals 
2000.
  The Republican budget cuts Federal support for drug-free schools and 
community programs to the tune of $266 million, or about 60 percent, 
sharply reducing drug abuse and violence prevention activities serving 
students in 97 percent of our Nation's schools. In Texas, we would lose 
$18.9 million.
  The House would cut funds to States ready to implement school-to-work 
programs by $20.6 million, or by 18 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I intend to as we proceed during 
this hour, but I would like to yield time to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Reed], my colleague.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have come to the floor today to join my colleagues in addressing 
the serious issues of the Republican budget and the draconian cuts to 
education. The American public understands the importance of education. 
They understand now more than ever that we have to prepare the best 
educated young people for the challenges ahead. They want 
overwhelmingly to invest more resources, both Federal resources, local 
resources, in good, solid education for their youngsters and for the 
whole community.
  Unfortunately, this budget takes exactly the opposite track. It 
disinvests in good, solid, well-established, innovative education 
programs.
  Last Congress, we tried to move forward with an agenda of education 
reform and support that would truly represent a sound investment in the 
future of this country, particularly at a time when the old industrial 
age is yielding to the new information age.
  Years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, it would not be unreasonable 
for a young person to think that with a high school education he or she 
could leave that high school, find an adequate job, make a living to 
support a family, and, in fact, spend a whole career with those skills 
learned in high school. Today, every American understands that this is 
not the case, that today, in order to be an effective worker in almost 
every level of endeavor, you have to have postsecondary skills, either 
college or some technical training. The thrust and the consequence of 
this Republican budget is that those opportunities for higher education 
will be diminished.
  We also understand, and the American people understand, that we have 
to have a solid basis in order to start our young people off on a solid 
path to educational achievement. That is why last year we spent a great 
deal of time on a bipartisan basis in developing the Goals 2000 
program. Goals 2000 is an attempt, I think a very worthy attempt, to 
act as a catalyst from the Federal level for school reform at the local 
level, to provide the kind of resources, the directions and the 
standards that would be very necessary to move our elementary and 
secondary education system forward.
  We also in the last Congress understood that in too many schools the 
education process is sacrificed to a climate of violence and 
intimidation, a climate that is too often indicated by pervasive drug 
use, and, as a result, we passed a Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act.
  These legislative measures at the elementary and secondary level were 
important steps forward, but sadly, too, 

[[Page H 13775]]
because of this budget, those initiatives will not receive the 
resources that are necessary to carry on that important work.
  At the level of higher education, understanding, as the American 
people understand, the need for advanced skills, we sought to 
strengthen those existing programs, like the Pell grant and the 
Stafford loan program to make access to higher education something that 
would be available and affordable for all of our citizens. It makes 
sense, particularly as we move from this industrial age to the new 
information age which demands higher skills for everyone in our 
society.
  Again, sadly, the thrust of this Republican budget is to undercut 
significantly the resources that will be available for higher 
education. This budget would cut student loan programs by more than $5 
billion going forward for those young people that want to go on to 
higher education, postsecondary education.

  This is going to be a tremendous burden on their lives and the lives 
of their families, because one of the persistent complaints, one of the 
persistent concerns that I hear from my constituents in Rhode Island, 
those working people which we all claim to represent, those working 
families, is that they have one or two youngsters in college and the 
cost of college is outrageous, and without adequate Federal assistance, 
they cannot send their children to the schools they want.
  In some cases, they cannot send them to school at all or, in other 
cases, they have to make the very difficult choice of which child will 
be favored with a college education and which will be told, well, you 
have to fend for yourself in the job market without that education. 
That is a very, very cruel choice which I thought that we had basically 
prevented in the last 30 years by providing a strong Federal commitment 
to higher education. But, sadly, we seem to be going back to a point in 
time when those cruel choices were all too common.
  All of this impacts mightily in the localities, the districts and the 
States that we represent. In my State alone, in Rhode Island, we 
estimate that next year we will lose about $14 million in resources for 
education, and that over the next several years, the next 7 years of 
this budget, we will lose more than $90 million.
  Where will these cuts go to? First, I mentioned the Goals 2000 
program. This is really the only money for reform and restructuring of 
our educational system that is available in my home State. It has been 
eagerly embraced by the commissioner of elementary and secondary 
education in my State, by all of the districts.
  There is an active process, an exciting process of change that is 
being sponsored by this program; and, sadly, we will lose about $1.4 
million roughly all of the money that has been committed. This will 
affect as many as 71 schools who are participating directly as schools 
in the program. This is going to set back reform which is necessary and 
which every American citizen recognizes is necessary. It will set it 
back perhaps fatally.
  In terms of student loans, the budget cuts would raise the cost of a 
college education by more than $2,000 for over 36,000 college students 
and more than $9,400 for over 5,000 graduate students in Rhode Island.
  Pell grants. Changes in the Pell grant program will reduce support to 
students in Rhode Island by nearly $2 million. An estimated 1,600 
students in 1996 alone will be denied Pell grants as a result of this 
cut.
  Title I program, another program very important to elementary and 
secondary education that provides compensatory education for low-income 
American. Under this budget, the funds would be cut by a total of about 
$3.5 million, and this has a real impact, not only again in the lives 
of these students but in the tax rolls in local communities. Because as 
the city of Providence and the city of Central Falls and the city of 
Pawtucket copes with these cuts, they have to turn, once again, to 
their very, very strained tax rolls to make up the difference, if they 
can make it up at all.
  So this is not just a problem for the beneficiaries of the program. 
It is a problem for the fiscal health of our cities and towns in Rhode 
Island.
  I mentioned before the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act which so 
important last Congress, which directed resources to a problem that is 
gnawing at the heart not only of our educational system but of our 
society as a whole. That, too, is going to lose funds. These budget 
cuts result in about a $1 million loss in these funds, which are 
helping to keep programs going, to show young people that drugs are not 
anything but the path to destruction and that we have to choose another 
path.
  I would also mention one other program which touches upon the issue 
of education and opportunities so importantly, and that is the national 
service program. Americorps in Rhode Island is a shining example of a 
program that is inspired perhaps by legislation but embraced by the 
business community and the local community as a whole. The director of 
Americorps in our State, Larry Fish, is the chairman of one of our 
largest financial institutions. We are very lucky to have every 
category of Americorps activity funded in Rhode Island.
  We have a City-Year program, which young people are spending a year 
helping out all through the community. We have programs that are 
helping through the Children's Crusade to mentor young people 
in schools to help them get through school and get on into college. A 
wonderful program, but, once again, even though this is supported 
strongly with corporate contributions and corporate leadership in Rhode 
Island, this program, too, is being affected mightily, basically almost 
zeroed out, if not entirely. It would deny 450,000 young people in 
Rhode Island the chance to serve.

  This program is so useful, too, because it embodies in my view the 
ethic that we should all have as Americans: serving our country, and by 
that serving getting a chance to go to school and educate yourself so 
that you can be better prepared as a citizen, as a worker, as an 
American. Sadly, again this program is being jeopardized by this 
budget.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, when we look at this budget and we look at the reality 
of the world, something is sadly wrong. At a time when we have to 
invest in education, at a time when our economic future is at stake and 
education will be the key to our success as an economy, as a society, 
as a world power, and as a source of opportunity for all of our 
citizens, we are turning our back on funding education.
  This is a sad mistake which I hope we can rectify in the days ahead.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island with 
whom I enjoy serving on our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just sum up what he said and what the concern a 
lot of us have is that balancing the budget requires tough choices, but 
we should not let the majority balance the budget on education.
  The proposed budget cuts make only a tiny part in the size of the 
deficit. Yet they have a tremendous devastating impact on the future of 
America's children.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. We serve 
together on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and 
we actually sit together and have gotten to know each other over the 
last 3 years serving on that committee.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I compliment the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, 
and the members of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities for organizing this special order tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that it was just last year when I 
convinced this body to approve a landmark resolution, which put us on 
our way to making our schools the best in the world.
  Yes, it is true.
  Last year, the House approved my resolution which called on Congress 
to increase our investment in education by 1 percent a year, until the 
education budget accounts for 10 percent of the budget in 2002.
  At the time, I said that the resolution would send a clear message to 
those who decide how our Federal dollars are spent. The appropriators 
received the message that this Congress was serious about improving 
education.
  Well, guess what, folks? Times have changed. We have got a new 
majority 

[[Page H 13776]]
in Congress. And, instead of going forward, we are going backward. 
Fast.
  The new majority in the House blatantly ignored the pledge we made 
last year to improve our children's education, and has passed some of 
the most antieducation legislation this Nation has ever seen.
  Just take a look at the education budget for 1996 which the House has 
approved.
  This terrible bill cuts: Head Start, chapter one, safe and drug-free 
schools, school-to-work, and vocational and adult education.
  In all, it cuts education by 13 percent in 1 year alone; 13 percent.
  But that is nothing compared to what they want to do to our education 
system over the next 7 years.
  The new majority's 7-year budget plan would deny Head Start to 
180,000 children by 2002.
  It eliminates Goals 2000, which helps schools meet higher national 
standards and increases parental involvement.
  It kills AmeriCorps, which has provided thousands of Americans with 
college tuition assistance in exchange for community service.
  And, it cuts in half, the President's program aimed at helping 
schools bring technology into the classroom.
  Under their budget, my State of California alone will lose, among 
other things, $1 billion for the School Lunch Program, and over 181,000 
Californians will be denied participation in the cost-effective direct 
Student Loan Program.
  My friends, that is the wrong direction, and that is not the way we 
are supposed to be taking care of our children and their education.
  You see, I believe, as do my colleagues here today, that our Nation's 
greatest responsibility is to provide a quality education for everybody 
in this country.
  We believe this because education is absolutely central to solving 
the problems facing our Nation.
  When we strengthen education, we prepare our children and workers for 
jobs that pay a livable wage; we get people off welfare and prevent 
people from having to go on welfare in the first place; we actually 
prevent crime and violence in our communities; and, we increase respect 
for our health, respect for our environment, and respect for each 
other.
  That is why, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the new 
majority is cutting and gutting our education system.
  You see, we can balance the budget, but it does not have to be on the 
backs of our children and their education.
  It is time to stop this assault of education.
  It is time to pass a budget that invests in education, and reduces 
the deficit by cutting wasteful military and Government spending; 
closing tax loopholes; and ending corporate welfare.
  It is time to make our Nation's No. 1 special interest our children, 
and not the fat cats and lobbyists in Washington.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ganske). The gentlewoman is recognized 
for 39 minutes.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the time 
being yielded to me and I appreciate the ranking member of our 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities taking the time to 
schedule this special order.
  Mr. Speaker, the discussions that the House and the Senate have been 
having recently with regard to the reconciliation budget is a 7-year 
plan to bring the Government eventually to a balanced budget, or a zero 
deficit in 7 years. In discussing the budget reconciliation proposal, 
which is a 7-year plan, there are so many larger issues, such as the 
$270 billion reduction in Medicare, $162 billion cuts in Medicaid, and 
other programs of that enormity.
  In the course of the debate in the budget reconciliation measure last 
week, we did not hear much about the impacts on education, and so I 
appreciate the time that is being allotted this evening to discuss the 
impacts on education, because in my estimation it is probably the most 
far-reaching and devastating of all the cuts that we are making.
  I know that the majority feels very strongly about reallocating the 
functions of Government, to the idea specifically of returning many of 
the functions that have been assumed by the Federal Government, many of 
the priorities that have been expressed by the Federal Government over 
the last 20 or 30 years, and trying to reassemble them and make them 
State priorities, under the assumption that the States know best how to 
govern their constituents and are more directly responsible one to the 
other.
  While that is an excellent political philosophy, it seems wholly 
inappropriate in the field of education because education, after all, 
is really tooling one generation to the next generation for leadership, 
for the ability to assume responsibility, to maintain our quality of 
life, our ability to compete in the world market, and to discover those 
things that make our economy and our business and so forth much more 
competitive.
  So in the educational system rests the future of this country, not 
just individually, for the sake of the child or the family or their 
prosperity, but truly the whole nature of our society and the success 
of our country lies in our ability to educate our children well. We 
know that in recent years, compared to other countries, we have been 
falling by the wayside.
  I look at such things as national security as being, indeed, 
important. But what is more important than the national domestic 
security of our citizens through adequate education? That is what the 
forfeiture of funding in education means to me and why I feel that this 
is a very, very dangerous decision.
  If all States were equal in their ability to educate and to provide 
quality education to their children and adults that need training and 
education, then perhaps our concerns can be mitigated somewhat by the 
idea that the States have the capacity and the will to perform in 
accordance to the national expectations. But we all know that our 
States are very widely differing in their ability to fulfill this 
function. One cannot, as a Nation, exercise the luxury of happenstance 
in terms of the States' abilities to perform. Therefore, the presence 
of the Federal Government in this important field of education seems to 
me the most important responsibility that we have to our country and to 
our future.
  So when we see this reconciliation, 7-year balanced budget plan 
calling for cuts amounting to $45 billion over the next 7 years, it 
troubles me deeply that we are sacrificing the future capacity of our 
children and our adults who are being trained under these programs to 
meet the challenges of the future. I think that this is a mistaken 
notion of reversion to State responsibilities.
  Even within a State, one can recognize that there are differences in 
capacities of local communities to assume their responsibilities, and 
we hear States having to come up with ways in which they can balance 
out their support for education by giving certain localities additional 
funds with which to function, because the basis for funding education 
is the local real property tax, and we know that the values of property 
differ even within one State. Of course, they differ widely all across 
the country.
  If we are going to put the future of our country in terms of our 
ability to compete with the rest of the world on this notion of equity 
distributed by real property taxes, that seems to me wildly off the 
mark. Therefore, the idea of the Federal interest in supporting 
educational opportunities in our 50 States is so important.
  To see programs like title I, for instance, being cut back, even this 
1 year, fiscal year 1996, we are apt to lose almost $2 billion if we 
follow the rate of reductions between the House and the Senate 
versions. These bills are still in conference and the final figures 
have not been reconciled.
  We have a moment in our legislative discussions to rise to the 
occasion, and to call attention to the House and the Senate and to the 
conference committees about this dangerous course that we are embarked 
upon.
  Title I, as we know, is a program that allocates funds to our local 
school districts that have high concentrations of poor people, 
youngsters that are educationally disadvantaged through economic 
circumstances or because of other disadvantages that may surround them 
in their environment and in their community.

[[Page H 13777]]

  Why is it important that the Federal Government support these 
communities with large concentrations of disadvantaged children? Well, 
because if we do not, then we will have large blocks of our children in 
various places throughout the country ill-educated and ill-equipped to 
perform in this highly technological society. If they are ill-equipped 
to compete and they are not properly prepared, they will constantly be 
a cost factor not only for the local communities but also for the 
Federal Government, so it is important that we target this money in 
these special communities.
  So one would have thought, of all the programs in education, that 
this would be the last place that there would be any significant cuts. 
Yet we see nearly a billion, probably a $2 billion reduction in just 1 
year of that program.
  For my State, just by State, we only have two Members in the House of 
Representatives, so that illustrates comparatively the size of my 
State. Even my State is going to suffer somewhere between a $1.7 
million loss as in the Senate version and a $3 million loss if it 
followed the House version.
  That is a very big cut for my State to have to endure in a very, very 
important program which has been successful. One only has to look at 
the reports that have been written. The criticisms are not from the 
funding, the criticisms are because it has not been adequately 
targeted. The maximum bang for the buck has not been achieved because 
the requirements of the Federal Government have not been as stringent 
as they should have been.

                              {time}  1515

  But nowhere in these reports and critiques is there a suggestion that 
the Federal Government funding ought not to go. It still is considered 
a very, very important program.
  Addressing the whole subject of quality education and meeting the 
expectations of the Nation in terms of what education ought to mean to 
our society, it was important that the Governors convene some years ago 
a task force on trying to find ways in which the States could direct 
their resources and come up with a higher quality of education. So they 
set this Goals 2000 concept. It was brought to the Congress by 
President Bush, and now implemented by President Clinton, and yet we 
find that this is one of the programs that the House has chosen to zero 
out, and that is a shame because one looks to the Federal Government, 
it seems to me, for leadership. And here we are taking up the 
recommendations of the Governors' conference and doing precisely what 
the Governors conference has suggested, putting the Governors 
themselves really on the governing board of this group called Goals 
2000, and yet the House of Representatives majority party has seen fit 
to zero out this function. It seems to me this is an absolutely 
appropriate area for the Federal Government to be involved in.
  The next one is also equally disturbing, the safe and drug-free 
schools. The letters that I receive, the critique that has come to my 
attention from all over the country because I am a member of this 
committee, suggest that this program is working very, very well. For a 
small amount of money that the schools receive, they have been able to 
do a monumental job of trying to instill in our young people the 
dangers of drug addiction and drug use and how simple it is to develop 
an attitude and a philosophy of simply rejecting this intervention in 
your life. So to see this program cut back so drastically, the fiscal 
year 1995 allocation was $466 million. The House allocated only a $200-
million figure, and in the budget resolution which came up and which we 
approved, it zeroed it out, and I think that that is a serious mistake.
  So as we look at this whole thing, we see any number of areas which 
are truly regrettable. Vocational education, as my colleague from 
California mentioned, an area which is so vital in this dynamically 
changing technological environment, we need to have vocational programs 
that constantly train and retrain our workers and adapt them to 
changing circumstances; the vocational education ought to be retained 
at its high level of Federal participation.
  When we look at education, what do people usually say? The teacher is 
the central focus of the success of the school or the child or the 
programs, and so we rest our case upon the quality of teachers, the 
quality of our educational system, the ways in which our teachers are 
better equipped to handle their classes, and yet here again we find 
that the programs have been cut back very drastically.
  The President, in the fiscal year 1996 budget, asked for $735 million 
for the Eisenhower professional development program. The House only 
allocated $500 million. So that is a terrible cut, one that I know will 
be felt throughout the system.
  There is a lot more to be said about the impacts of these cuts, but I 
notice that my colleague from New York is here, and I would invite him 
to make his comments at this point, and I yield to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii.
  You know, I certainly agree with everything that she said, and what 
is really just so shocking about this is that only a year ago it would 
have been unthinkable to have these kinds of draconian cuts to 
education.

  If you asked the American people how can we best fulfill the future 
promise of America, they certainly would say that we need to invest in 
our children's future, that we need to invest in education, that we 
need to invest in programs for the future, and while we may have some 
disagreements in Congress over which programs are important and which 
programs are more important than others, I do not think that there 
should be any question that we should be increasing funding for our 
children's future or our Nation's future for education.
  If this appropriations bill is enacted, the education cut would be 
the largest setback to education in United States history. Education 
would be cut under the Republican plan by 17 percent, while defense 
spending is increased by 5 percent, and yet we are still giving the 
$270-billion tax break for the rich.
  I do not see where the priorities are straight when we are cutting 
education. Now, this House, 1996 Labor, HHS, Education bill, in my 
opinion, many, many of these appropriations bills are horrendous, and 
to me this is the most horrendous of all the bills. We are cutting 
education funding by $4 billion. The budget reconciliation package cuts 
student aid by $5 billion over 7 years. My State of New York will lose 
$319 million next year and $2.5 billion over the next 7 years.
  Major cuts in education are certainly unwise, and unwise as an 
economic policy as well, and this legislation, amongst all the terrible 
things it does, as my colleague from Hawaii points out, this 
legislation eliminates $1 billion from Medicaid funds from more than 1 
million children with disabilities. New York City will lose $85 million 
of that money, and the legislation denies Head Start to 180,000 
children in the year 2002 as compared to 1995.
  Just last year we were fully funding Head Start, and in a bipartisan 
approach we were all patting each other on the back to say Head Start 
is really a program that works. Everyone agreed, and here we are 
cutting it.
  My colleague from Hawaii mentioned we eliminate Goals 2000, the 
Eisenhower professional development program, the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools Program. What could be more important than a program to ensure 
that we have safe and drug-free schools? Certainly those of us in urban 
areas know that we have a problem in our schools, and we should be 
trying to eradicate the drug problem, not cutting back funds to try to 
eradicate it.
  The legislation cuts bilingual education, vocational education, $9.5 
million in New York State in vocational education, and title I. Title 
I, in my district, is very, very important because there are a lot of 
children with low income and the schools rely on title I funding.
  We have a 17 percent cut of $1.1 billion in 1996 in title I funding. 
Title I funding was put there so that schools that were in poorer areas 
could get the enrichment, the children in those schools could get the 
enrichment they deserve. What we are doing is we say we do not really 
give a darn about the poor and we are just going to cut those funds.
  I think in the long run I could go on and on about the things, the 
terrible things that this bill does, but it is just basically, I think, 
the wrong approach. 

[[Page H 13778]]

  There is fat in the Federal budget. We need to downsize the Federal 
Government. We need to cut out fat. We need to put programs that work 
ahead and fund programs that work, and we need to change programs that 
do not work. But we do not need cuts to education. We do not need the 
orientation of mortgaging the future of our country by saying that we 
are not going to continue to expand.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder how you define the word ``cut.'' 
How would you define the word ``cut''?
  Mr. ENGEL. Let me just say to my colleague, we have had this 
discussion not only in this bill but in Medicaid and Medicare, and you 
can play with numbers, you can say, well, we are really giving it a 
small increase or we are cutting back on what we were going to have. To 
me, the bottom line is this, because we can all play with numbers and 
can all show statistics, the bottom line is what kind of programs do we 
have now in 1995-1996, if I just might answer your question, and what 
are we going to have under this bill in the year 2002?
  Mr. HOKE. You are using specific language, I say to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Engel]. You are using the word ``cut.'' If you are 
going to use the word ``cut,'' it seems to me it is very confusing to 
the public. When a family says they are going to cut their spending for 
the next year, they are spending $2,000 a month now, next year they are 
going to spend $1,850 a month, that is a cut. Is it not true in every 
single one of these education appropriations we are talking about, the 
spending goes up from 1996 to 1995?
  Mr. ENGEL. No. That is not true.
  Mr. HOKE. I will grant you it might not be true in absolutely every 
case. Certainly, overall the appropriations bill for education is 
substantially more in 1996 than it is in 1995 and substantially more in 
1997 than in 1996, more in 1998 than in 1997. It goes up every single 
year.
  If you want to say we are reducing the rate of increase, if you want 
to say that we are not spending as much as CBO has said we would be 
spending a year ago, you are absolutely right. But to suggest we are 
cutting spending and spending less this year in this education 
appropriation than we were last year is absolutely wrong.
  Mr. ENGEL. Let me just answer the gentleman again. Let me say the 
bottom line is that we know how much funding we need to keep American 
education looking forward, to increasing the funding for education that 
we know our children are going to need so that this Nation is going to 
have a future, and what I see here when I look at this bill, I look at 
the Republican plan, is that in each and every aspect that the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gene Green] and I have mentioned, we are not going to be able to 
provide the kinds of services that we set as a priority in the last 
Congress on a bipartisan basis.

  Mr. HOKE. You are absolutely right, I say to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Let me just answer you. When we are going to deny Head 
Start to 180,000 children in the year 2002, to me, anyway you play with 
numbers, that is a cut. If we are going to say that children who have 
disabilities are not going to be able to get the funding, that is a 
cut. If we are going to eliminate or sharply curtail the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools Program, that is a cut, and we can point to several more 
instances whereby it is a hard cut, and even if it is not a cut, it is 
a cut in the services that we will be able to provide for our children 
because of inflation and because of what we have learned and where we 
know we have to provide the funds. There is no denying that. There will 
be a cut in education services to millions of American children, and I 
personally cannot see that at a time when we are increasing defense 
spending, giving a huge tax break to the rich. I cannot see us 
sacrificing education funding for our children.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Reclaiming my time at this point, I still have 
others to yield to. But let me say that on all of the items that I 
mentioned, there is a cut in funding for fiscal year 1996 based upon 
fiscal year 1995.
  I am not talking about reductions in anticipated funding. But I want 
to make sure that everyone understands that in fiscal year 1995, title 
I was funded at $6.7 billion. The House-passed bill provides for only 
$5.5 billion. If that is not a cut, I cannot understand what a cut is.
  Goals 2000, we had $361 million. The House-passed bill has zero 
funding. That is obviously a cut.
  Safe and drug-free schools in fiscal year 1995 was funded at $466 
million. The House-passed bill was funded at $200 million. That is a 
cut, no matter how you look at it.
  Bilingual education, we were funded in fiscal year 1995 at $157 
million. The House-passed bill for fiscal year 1996 provides only a $53 
million. That is a cut.
  Vocational education in fiscal year 1995 was $1.1 billion. The House-
passed bill provides $903 million. That is a cut.
  The Eisenhower professional development was funded at $598 million 
for fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 1996 the House provided $500 
million.
  So all of the programs that have been mentioned here in the special 
orders, there are clear cuts in the appropriation bills that have 
cleared this House. Obviously, they are still pending in the Senate.
  The point of this special order is to call attention to these cuts, 
over $4 billion in total as against fiscal year 1995 spending, and it 
is not the idea of what more is coming in the future, 7 years. It is 
what is being done now to the educational support by the Federal 
Government in all of these important areas.

                              {time}  1530

  I am glad my colleague has raised this point, because it gave me the 
opportunity to clearly point out that we are talking about cuts in 
current funding.
  I am very happy to yield to my colleague from Texas, Sheila Jackson-
Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii yielding, and I particularly appreciate the pointed focus of her 
presentation relating to education. I was in a meeting and then at my 
office, and I heard the discussion ongoing, and am sorry that the 
gentleman has offered to not continue to wait on some time to have this 
discussion, because you were clearly responding to what I think has 
been misrepresentations about the direction that our Republican 
colleagues are taking us, and also their arguments there have not been 
cuts.
  I met with a group of educators in the North Forest Independent 
School District, which is a school district that has brought itself out 
of both near bankruptcy, but as well out of the doldrums of poor test 
scores in and around the city of Houston. Clearly the programs that 
have been drastically cut are the very programs that these educators 
have utilized to assist their children in excelling. We already know we 
can tell our children that they can succeed, but these have been 
bridges that have helped them.
  The Goals 2000 programs are particularly unique when it relates to 
inner city and rural school children, where they do not have the 
necessary resources. It is well documented that Head Start provides 
that extra step, if you will, for many of our children who do not have 
the privileges of preschool education that is paid for by the private 
sector because of the economic development level of their parents.
  The schools also have had a margin of victory with the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools Program. I do not know why anyone would call that a waste 
of money. And the $4 billion cuts overall clearly tell our educators as 
well as our children that the successes that they have had are not 
valuable.
  The Budget Reconciliation Act that cuts these proposals is 
misdirected. Vocational education, the school-to-work programs that 
have been so successful for some of our youngsters who are not directly 
interested and or prepared for a liberal arts college education.
  I heard earlier the Democrats were being accused of supporting a 
myriad of job training programs; we do not know which ones we want. I 
might tell my colleague, the gentleman who was on the floor previously, 
that we have already consolidated job programs. We have already done an 
inventory of the effective ones and the noneffective 

[[Page H 13779]]
ones, and we can be assured that we have programs that have proven to 
be successful.
  The gentlewoman has been a stalwart spokesperson for real welfare 
reform. How do you reform welfare if you do not give that dependent 
mother or father an opportunity for job training and for work?
  So when we begin to talk about cutting, I am wondering whether my 
Republican colleagues understand the word ``investment,'' because when 
you invest in job taining, education, then you prepare yourselves for 
the diminishing of welfare rolls, you prepare yourself for people to be 
tuned into the work force of the 21st century, you prepare yourself for 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I would compliment the gentlewoman, and I would thank 
her for allowing me to bring this to a point of acknowledging the 
drastic and devastating impact that this will have in my local 
community.
  I close simply by saying part of the cuts that have come about in the 
education cuts and the job training cuts comes I think as one of the 
most telling and also the most destructive cuts, because of the 
negative discussion around it, and that was summer youth jobs that many 
of us have seen work, because they are partnerships between the public 
and private sector.
  I was on the floor earlier talking about that, because it hurts so 
much to tell a youngster it is only a baby-sitting job, you were not 
learning anything from being exposed at an energy company or in a local 
government office or in the parks department or somewhere else where 
you have seen that work counts and work is important.
  I think and hope that in this budget reconciliation process, even as 
short as it is, that we give life to the idea that we can balance the 
budget in a better way, less mean spirited, but we can invest in our 
people so that we will not have this occurrence as we move into the 
21st century.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas 
for her contribution. It is very important that we have this kind of 
focus on the significance of the cuts in education.

  I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding and for her taking this time on this important matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I join this debate to point out some impacts that are 
now starting to be felt in the State of California, and that is with 
our superintendent of public instruction. Delaine Easton has written to 
our delegation explaining her very deep concern with the cuts in the 
education budget, both those which are in the Health and Human Services 
appropriations bill and the budget cuts.
  California stands to lose some $260 million under the budget now 
being considered in the conference discussions with the administration. 
In her words, this is catastrophic for our State. Our State, which has 
the obligation to educate a very diverse school population that is 
beset with the whole series of problems that confront many of our large 
States, are simply not going to be able to do that job in an adequate 
fashion. When I say in an adequate fashion, I am simply talking about 
people having the ability to perform at grade level in the basics of 
education, in reading and writing and mathematics and critical thinking 
skills.
  The growing evidence is that a growing number of students across our 
State and across this country are simply not becoming proficient in 
those very basic skills, those skills which are necessary if these 
students are going to be able to take their place in the American 
economy and if they are going to be able to adapt to the changing 
economy once they have their place in the job market.
  We see evidence of this now in the State college system. In the State 
of California, some 60 percent of the entrants in the State college 
system are in need of remedial education. The frightening part is this 
is from I believe the top 30 percent of the students who graduate from 
high school in our State. So now we find ourselves spending money on 
some of the highest paid professors to deal with remedial education 
problems that should have been dealt with quite properly at the 4th and 
5th and 6th grade of education. But as our superintendent of public 
instruction tells us, the likelihood of that now happening with these 
budget cuts is placed in jeopardy.
  That is not to suggest that this is a problem of money alone, because 
it is not. But it is also to strongly suggest, as she does in her 
communications to the members of our delegation, that the corrective 
actions necessary in terms of school reform, in terms of 
accountability, in terms of teacher proficiency, in terms of reducing 
the administrative bureaucracy, are all placed in jeopardy by these 
budget cuts. They make all of the tasks of our educational system in 
California far more difficult.
  This does not even begin to speak to the problem of the capital 
assets of our elementary and secondary education systems in the State 
of California, where we now find our children, the children that we 
keep claiming are so important to the future of this country, that we 
believe are the most important asset of the future of this country, we 
are now sending them to schools that are dilapidated, that are run 
down, that are not capable of being properly wired for new 
technologies, for computer access for these students, where students 
are constantly confronted with water coming through the ceiling.
  That is a whole other issue. But as the State struggles with that, if 
it loses this kind of program money, if it loses this kind of 
assistance that generates additional assistance at the State level and 
at the local level to provide for extra reading help and mathematics 
tutoring, computer equipment, special training for teachers, all of 
which every independent report in assessing the American education 
system and the California education system, done by the California 
Roundtable, done by our business community, to look at this educational 
system, none of them have suggested that resources to that system 
should be reduced. They have all suggested that resources going to that 
system should be reorganized and should be used more efficiently. But 
the monies that you gain from the efficient use of that reorganization 
should be plowed back into that system so that we can better educate a 
larger number of the children.
  Those are not the conclusions that I have reached. Those are not the 
conclusions that the California Teachers Association has reached or the 
school principals have reached. Those are the conclusions of 
independent blue ribbon commissions, dominated in many instances by the 
business community, who have looked at these systems, have looked at 
these institutions and said we have a major problem simply in the 
sufficiency of the resources available to these institutions.

  So when we see budgets that are passed by the House of 
Representatives that are talking about a 17-percent reduction over 7 
years in these budgets, we are talking about a trickle down of a 
critical problem for local education.
  Interestingly enough, we find that people in my home community of 
Martinez and many other communities that I represent in my 
congressional district, they are voting to try to raise what resources 
they can in the community to improve school facilities, to try to 
provide technological improvements to the education system. But at the 
same time they are making this effort, that they are voting with their 
pocketbook, what they see is a reduction in resources from the Federal 
Government. It is not only unwise, but I think it flies in the face of 
what parents have said they want for their children. I think we have an 
obligation to take these programs that have been highly successful and 
make sure that they in fact are delivered to the students of our State 
and of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again the gentlewoman for taking this 
time, and I just want to say that I think superintendent Delaine Easton 
makes a very forceful case to the Members of the delegation to give 
very, very strict scrutiny to the cuts that have been made in the 
education budget and to understanding the impacts as they drift down to 
the local district level in the State of California.
  We have a huge obligation and responsibility to our students to make 
them world class graduates, and to be 

[[Page H 13780]]
proficient at a world class level in the basics of education and in 
critical thinking. All of the evidence suggests we will not meet that 
responsibility and obligation to our students with the educational 
budget and the trendlines that are put in place by the budget adopted 
by the House and the Senate.
  I would hope that the President would reject it. Should we eventually 
get to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, I would hope 
that Members of Congress would vote against that, I would hope that the 
President would veto it, and I would hope that we sustain his veto so 
we can negotiate decent levels of education funding for our children 
and for our families who have such high aspirations and hopes and 
desires for their children's education and for their ability to provide 
for their economic wherewithal in the American economic system.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
contribution in this debate. I concur with the gentleman absolutely 
that if the conference bill in this area comes back anywhere near what 
I have just described, the only thing that is left for us to do is to 
defeat that bill and hope that the Congress concurs with our opinion. 
If not, if it should pass, I certainly hope that the President will 
veto it, and the House will surely sustain that veto.
  This is an area of critical importance. I cannot emphasize our 
feelings about this in any stronger terms. I believe fervently that we 
represent the majority of people in this country that are committed to 
the Federal participation in education. If we could have a referendum, 
I am sure that our point of view would be more than supported. I hope 
that point of view will be recognized by the Members who are conferees 
on the conference committee, and that we will have an opportunity to 
restore this funding.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the proposed cuts 
in education.
  I have listened to Member after Member come to the well and say time 
after time that we must protect the future of the children of tomorrow 
and their children.
  In reality, Members on the other side of the aisle are jeopardizing 
our children's future.
  How can you guarantee the future if you don't take care of the 
children of today?
  The new majority is cutting education so it can give tax breaks to 
the rich and spend more on defense.
  If the Members on the other side of the aisle were really serious 
about balancing the budget to ensure the prosperity of future 
generations, they would do it responsibly.
  They would not slash the programs that help the young, the old, the 
poor, and the middle class.
  If they truly wanted to help our kids succeed, they would make an 
investment in education, not eliminate the support that schools depend 
upon.
  In fiscal year 1995, California received $2.5 billion from the 
Federal Government for education.
  Under legislation crafted by the new House majority, California would 
lose $392 million in fiscal year 1996, and stands to lose a total of 
$2.59 billion over 7 years.
  In fiscal year 1996, there would be $42.4 million less for Pell 
grants for college, $42.1 million less for local school reform, $122.3 
million less for services for disadvantaged children, $26.4 million 
less for safe and drug-free schools, $18.4 million less for vocational 
education, and $5 million less for teacher training.
  Come on now, who's taking care of whom.
  The new majority is taking care of the rich and ignoring the children 
of today.
  If they're worrying about the children of tomorrow then they would 
take care of the children of today.

                          ____________________