[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S292-S295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           EDUCATIONAL IMPACT OF SHORT-TERM FUNDING MEASURES

  Mr. KENNEDY. On Friday, January 26, the continuing resolution that 
has kept the Government operating for the last 3 weeks will expire. 
Once again, it will be necessary to enact a temporary funding measure 
to avoid shutting down the Government.
  Although I understand the need to make certain accommodations while 
we attempt to negotiate an acceptable budget agreement, many of the 
areas we are fighting to protect, especially education, are facing 
increasing risk from this series of short-term measures.
  A new continuing resolution, even for a few weeks, will take us past 
critical budget, planning, and teacher contract dates in school 
districts and will wreak havoc on the college admissions and financial 
aid process for high school students making critical college decisions. 
Furthermore, it will take us through half this fiscal year at funding 
levels that cut education by 13 percent overall and many programs by 
much more. This is no way to run a Government or to indicate the 
support for education from kindergarten through high school and to the 
colleges.

  Mr. President, in the case of colleges, they cannot complete 
financial aid packages for the spring admissions cycle. By February 1, 
the Federal Government is required by statute to supply colleges with 
the numbers showing their Pell grant allocations and tables showing how 
much students of different need levels will receive in Pell grants. As 
of now, there are four different Pell grant appropriations numbers--the 
House, the Senate, the President's, and the continuing resolution--and 
there are different minimum and maximum award levels.
  Likewise, by February 1, the Government is required to supply 
colleges with their allocation of campus-based aid--college work study, 
supplemental education opportunity grants, and Perkins loans.
  In February, March, and April, when high school students are admitted 
to college for next fall, they receive a detailed financial aid offer 
showing how much each college will cost and how much aid they will get 
from each source--Federal, State, or college. Colleges cannot do this 
packaging for individual students without 1996 numbers for each type of 
financial aid.
  Today I received a letter from the American Council on Education 
urging Congress to approve a full-year budget for education. Otherwise, 
they say, ``The confusion that all students will face as a result of 
this uncertainty will have its most profound impact on high school 
seniors.'' This is what they say, ``* * * profound impact on high 
school seniors. As these students sit down with their parents to 
negotiate the process of selecting a college to attend next fall, or 
determining whether they will even be able to enroll, their decisions 
will be influenced heavily by the level and types of aid for which they 
may be eligible in a particular school.''
  Mr. President, just as it affects higher education, let me just 
mention what happens in many of the K-12 programs.
  School districts across the country face needless uncertainty as they 
struggle to prepare budgets for next year and enter into teacher 
contracts. The Committee for Education Funding, a coalition of 90 
education groups representing education at all levels, calls the 
funding levels in the continuing resolution ``a setback for education 
unprecedented in our nation's history,'' that will force ``layoffs of 
thousands of school employees and cutbacks in services to millions of 
children.''
  Boston, for example, is required by State law to submit its school 
budget for the next year to its school committee by the first Wednesday 
in February. The school committee must submit its budget to the mayor 
by the last Wednesday in March.
  Teacher union contracts require teachers to be notified of any 
layoffs for the next school year by May 15, or else teachers must be 
paid for the next year regardless.
  Because there are no 1996 figures for key Federal education programs, 
Boston feels that it must adopt a budget based on the worst-case--
House--level of funding for the title I Program, there would be a 15-
percent cut for Boston schools. The city will have to eliminate title I 
services at 14 of their 79 title I schools, and they will also have to 
lay off teachers.
  In Framingham, MA, Superintendent Eugene Thayer tells me that they 
will have to eliminate all title I reading programs in all middle 
schools, and severely cut back the support in elementary schools.
  The Philadelphia public schools estimate that they will lose $13.5 
million in title I funds under the current continuing resolution. At 
these levels, they will be forced to eliminate services in 62 schools 
serving 48,000 children. They will also have to lay off 100 teachers 
and 200 aides.
  In New York, even if a final budget is passed by March 15, school 
districts may not be able to learn their allocations before the 
beginning of May--far beyond the April 1 deadline for teacher contract 
negotiations.
  Based on past experience, New York educators say that it will take 
the Federal Government a few weeks, once a budget is passed, to 
determine State allocations for title I. These allocations are based on 
counties, and it takes New York 2 to 3 weeks to determine sub-
allocations to its 700 school districts. This timetable would put 
school districts far behind their required budget schedules to comply 
with teacher contracts.
  Mr. President, if you look at what we are doing, it is that 
effectively we will be cutting $3.1 billion, the largest cut in the 
Nation's history, in education. Last year, with the rescissions 
program, it was more than $600 million, and we are adding to that $3.1 
billion in cuts. Those education programs would be cut basically by 
some 13 percent overall; the title I by 17 percent, and the list goes 
on.
  We should oppose education cuts whenever and wherever they occur. 
President Clinton has demonstrated we can balance the budget in 7 years 
and protect education. We should not allow education to be slashed 
through the back door when those cuts would not be accepted through the 
front door.
  That is the problem. We are going to be asked, on a continuing 
resolution, to fund it at 75 percent on this, with all of the 
disruption that it is going to be having for hundreds of thousands of 
young people who have graduated from high school and who want to go to 
colleges, with all the disruption it will have for the parents and 
those young people, with all the disruption it will have for hundreds 
of thousands of young people who will be going, either from Head Start 
through kindergarten and all the way up through high school, with all 
the disruption it will have in the classrooms for the teachers, the 
parents and the students.
  Effectively, now, we have gone from holding hostage the Federal 
employees to holding hostage the schoolchildren in this country. That 
will be the effect and the impact of the continuing resolution, even at 
the 75 percent.
  So, Mr. President, when we hear the majority leader talk about 
whether we can get an agreement, we know what they are saying: You 
better take the 75 percent or take responsibility for closing down the 
Government. That is the policy which is being announced here on the 
floor of the Senate this afternoon. That is an intolerable policy. It 
is, in terms of the young people of this country. Why should they, 
effectively, be held hostage? The education policy in this country will 
be held hostage because of the small minority of Members in this body 
or in the other body who refuse to permit an orderly processing of the 
education programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent letters from the American 
Council on Education and the Committee for Education Funding be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 
[[Page S293]]

                                    American Council on Education,


                                      Office of the President,

                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 1996.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations, U.S. Senate, S-128 The 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We write on behalf of the nation's 
     colleges and universities to express our hope that Congress 
     will approve a full-year budget that provides adequate 
     appropriations for education programs, especially the student 
     financial assistance programs administered by the Department 
     of Education.
       As you are aware, federal student assistance is the primary 
     means by which students and their families receive help 
     financing a college education. Nearly eight million students 
     rely on some form of federal student aid. This year, however, 
     the highly effective system to deliver federal aid that was 
     constructed with bipartisan support is threatened with chaos 
     and uncertainty. Deadlines that will set the parameters for 
     the amount of aid our campuses may distribute to needy 
     students are approaching rapidly. Without knowing the Pell 
     Grant maximum award level, or the amount of Supplemental 
     Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG) or College Work-Study 
     (CWS) money available, or whether any funding will exist for 
     State Student Incentive Grants (SSIG), Perkins Loans, Javits 
     or Harris Fellowships, college aid officers and admissions 
     counselors will be unable to develop aid packages for the 
     coming academic year or provide accurate and appropriate 
     advice to students.
       The confusion that all students will face as a result of 
     this uncertainly will have its most profound impact on high 
     school seniors. As these students sit down with their parents 
     to negotiate the process of selecting a college to attend 
     next fall, or determining whether they even will be able to 
     enroll, their decisions will be influenced heavily by the 
     level and types of aid for which they may be eligible at a 
     particular school.
       As you prepare a Continuing Resolution to keep federal 
     programs operating past January 26th, we urge you to provide 
     secure funding for the federal student assistance programs 
     through the end of the fiscal year. The House and Senate 
     bills provide identical appropriations for SEOG, CWS, and 
     TRIO, and contain similar language regarding the Pell Grant 
     maximum award. We urge the deletion of a Senate restriction 
     limiting Pell Grants to not more than 3,768,000 students. 
     However, we urge you to adopt the Senate provisions 
     continuing the current Pell Grant minimum award level and 
     assuring that funding is provided for the SSIG program, the 
     Perkins Loan program, the Javits Fellowship program, and the 
     Harris Fellowship program.
       We appreciate your consideration of these views.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert H. Atwell,
                                                        President.

       On behalf of the following postsecondary education 
     associations: American Association of Community Colleges, 
     American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 
     American Council on Education, Association of American 
     Universities, Association of Catholic Colleges and 
     Universities, Association of Community College Trustees, 
     Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities, 
     Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Council of 
     Graduate Schools, Council of Independent Colleges, Hispanic 
     Association of Colleges and Universities, National 
     Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, 
     National Association of College and University Business 
     Officers, National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities, National Association of State Universities and 
     Land-Grant Colleges, United Negro College Fund.
                                                                    ____



                              Committee for Education Funding,

                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator/Representative: The Committee for Education 
     Funding (CEF), a coalition of ninety major education 
     organizations representing a broad spectrum of the education 
     community, strongly urges you to seek a bipartisan budget 
     agreement that makes education investment a priority and also 
     to approve a continuing resolution that maintains the vital 
     educational opportunities of America's children, youth, and 
     adults while negotiations proceed. We also urge you to oppose 
     a year long extension of the current continuing resolution, 
     which cuts education by $3.1 billion, or targeted 
     appropriations that fund some programs while eliminating or 
     cutting others.
       Recent polls show that the American public believes 
     strongly that improving education should be a top priority 
     for Congress. The polls also demonstrate overwhelming--92%--
     support for the same or increased federal funding for 
     education. Yet Congress is about to approve another 
     continuing resolution for FY96 that would cut education by 
     $3.1 billion if extended for the remainder of this fiscal 
     year--a setback for education unprecedented in our nation's 
     history. This is in addition to $600 million in rescissions 
     from education already enacted for FY95.
       A full year extension of the current continuing resolution 
     would mean severe cuts in basic skills instruction; college 
     grants, scholarships, and loans for needy students; school 
     reform and educational standards; teacher education; 
     vocational and career preparation; educational technology; 
     learning English; school safety and drug abuse prevention; 
     educational research and innovation; impact aid; libraries; 
     Head Start; and other vital education programs. See the 
     attached sheets for details of the impact of these cuts.
       Almost a third of this fiscal year is over without 
     providing 1996 funding levels for education. Postsecondary 
     institutions across the country are unable to approve 
     financial aid packages for millions of students. States and 
     local school districts are making budget decisions now that 
     will force layoffs of thousands of school employees and 
     cutbacks of services to millions of children.
       We urge you to oppose these cuts and insist that 
     Congressional leaders make investment in education a top 
     priority in the budget for FY96 and beyond. Americans want 
     greater educational opportunities for themselves and their 
     families to meet the challenges of a changing world economy. 
     Stop the education cuts and secure America's economic future.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Violet Boyer,
                                                        President.


              1996 committee for education funding members

       American Association of Classified School Employees, 
     American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 
     American Association of Community Colleges, American 
     Association of School Administrators, American Association of 
     State Colleges and Universities, American Association of 
     University Professors, American Counseling Association, 
     American Council on Education, American Educational Research 
     Association, American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
     Industrial Organizations.
       American Federation of School Administrators, American 
     Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, American 
     Federation of Teachers, American Library Association, 
     American Psychological Association, American School Food 
     Service Association, American Student Association of 
     Community Colleges, American Vocational Association, 
     America's Public Television Stations, Association for 
     Supervision and Curriculum Development, Association of 
     American Publishers.
       Association of American Universities, Association of 
     Community College Trustees, Association of Proprietary 
     Colleges, California Department of Education, California 
     State University, Career College Association, City University 
     of New York, Coalition of Higher Education Assistance 
     Organizations, The College Board, Colorado Department of 
     Education.
       Cooperative Education Association, Incorporated, Council 
     for American Private Education, Council for Educational 
     Development and Research, The Council for Exceptional 
     Children, Council of Chief State School Officers, Council of 
     Graduate Schools, Council of the Great City Schools, 
     Educational Testing Service, Georgetown University.
       International Reading Association, John F. Kennedy Center 
     for the Performing Arts, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Michigan 
     Department of Education, Military Impacted Schools 
     Association, National Association for Bilingual Education, 
     National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher 
     Education, National Association of College Admission 
     Counselors.
       National Association of College and University Business 
     Officers, National Association of Elementary School 
     Principals, National Association of Federal Education Program 
     Administrators, National Association of Federally Impacted 
     Schools, National Association of Graduate Professional 
     Students, Inc., National Association of Health Career 
     Schools, National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities, National Association of Private Schools for 
     Exceptional Children, National Association of School 
     Psychologists, National Association of Secondary School 
     Principals.
       National Association of State Boards of Education, National 
     Association of State Directors of Special Education, National 
     Association of State Directors of Vocational & Technical 
     Education Consortium, National Association of State 
     Scholarship and Grant Programs, National Association of 
     Student Financial Aid Administrators, National Board of 
     Professional Teaching Standards, National Committee for 
     School Desegregation, National Community Education 
     Association, National Coalition of Title I Chapter I Parents, 
     National Council for the Social Studies.
       National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations, 
     National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs, 
     Incorporated, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 
     National Dissemination Association, National Education 
     Association, National Middle School Association, National 
     School Boards Association, National School Development 
     Council, The National Title VI Steering Committee, National 
     Writing Project.
       New York State Education Department, Princeton University, 
     Public Education Fund Network, San Diego City Schools, 
     Seattle Public Schools, Software Publishers Association, 
     Texas Education Agency, United States Coalition of Education 
     for All, United States Student Association, University of 
     Michigan, Washington State Office of the Superintendent of 
     Public Instruction.

  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  
[[Page S294]]


                      THE POLITICAL REFORM AGENDA

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I think we are all very much looking 
forward to hearing the President's State of the Union Address tonight. 
It is a great honor to be a Member of this body and a great honor to be 
able to sit in the room with our national leader and hear his thoughts 
about the future for this country.
  I recall just a year ago, when the President gave his first State of 
the Union Address, under the rule of a different political party in the 
Congress, that some of the pundits said one of the questions was 
whether President Clinton would be irrelevant to the process; he had to 
establish his relevance. That was an absurd proposition. Of course we 
found, during the past year, it is pretty tough to make any President 
irrelevant, given his powers and given the willingness of this 
President to use those powers this year to try to represent the reality 
of our Government. The reality of our Government in 1995, and now in 
1996, is we have a split Government. One party is in the majority in 
the Congress and one party controls the Presidency.
  What I appreciated at the time, though, despite some of those press 
comments about the President's possible irrelevance, is that he came 
right out there and talked about many issues, and, in the midst of all 
this alleged irrelevance, he was willing to put on the table something 
that had been overlooked, perhaps forgotten, in the language of the 
Contract With America. That is, he brought us back to what I like to 
call--what many people in both parties like to call--the reform agenda, 
the political reform agenda.
  Those were issues across party lines that respond to the national 
feeling that maybe there is a little bit too much money in Washington 
that is expressed in too many ways and takes the elected 
representatives away from focusing on their constituents. So it was 
very helpful last year when the President in his State of the Union 
Address referred to the need for Members of Congress to give up the 
gifts, to have a gift ban. In fact, the President said something like, 
``Why don't you just say no.'' Those words were helpful. And it came to 
pass, in part because of his leadership, in part because of the 
public's interest. The media helped by exposing the reality of the 
gift-giving practice.

  But what helped most of all, along with the President's words, was 
the fact that there was a bipartisan effort, a true bipartisan effort, 
first in the Senate and then in the House, to try to stop this 
ridiculous practice of allowing gifts to be given to Members of 
Congress. It went into effect on January 1. I do not think it got 
enough attention in the year-end analysis of what happened in the 104th 
Congress. There were a lot of bad things to talk about, a lot of 
failure to resolve, a lot of failure to cooperate between the parties. 
But on that issue, both Houses in the end responded overwhelmingly and 
very positively.
  Tonight is an opportunity for the President, President Clinton, to 
take us to round 2 of the political reform agenda. I refer to it as 
sort of the big daddy of political reform compared to the gift ban. 
That is the issue of real campaign finance reform.
  President Clinton is no newcomer to campaign finance reform. I 
remember, as a brandnew U.S. Senator, in January 1993, the President 
came to our Democratic conference in the Senate. He said he had three 
top priorities for his term. The first had to do with the deficit and 
the economy. Of course there has been progress. We are still struggling 
mightily to try to move forward even more in that area. Second, he 
talked about his desire to reform our health care system. We have not 
achieved our goals in that area. That has been an area of 
disappointment to which we must return. But the third item he mentioned 
and that not many people are aware that he stressed right from the 
beginning was his belief that we had to have campaign finance reform 
for congressional elections, to truly change the tenor of the debate 
and the policy outcomes in this country.
  So he did not miss any time. He referred to the unnecessary and 
extreme hold that powerful moneyed interests have in this town of 
Washington and he did so in his Inaugural Address. Last summer, when he 
had the chance to appear jointly with the Speaker of the other body, he 
was quick to emphasize the issue of campaign finance reform, and did 
the famous handshake where he indicated his willingness to work 
together with both parties to solve the problem. So President Clinton 
has been there whenever the call for political reform has gone out. He 
has always been supportive, as we try to solve these problems. So he 
has been a big help.

  But tonight we need more help. Tonight we need the President of the 
United States to specifically put his strength, and the strength of his 
office, and the strength of his resolve, behind a national effort to 
change our campaign laws so that the people of our country can feel for 
the first time in a long time that those elections belong to them, that 
their votes count, and that it is not just the power of big money and 
influences that they cannot see or hear that control those elections.
  Mr. President, let us build on the success this year when some 
Members of this body tried to change the system we have for financing 
our Presidential election. Let us build on that. We were able to defeat 
that.
  The Presidential election in 1992 actually involved less expenditures 
than the Presidential election in 1988. That is because of the national 
laws we have had in this area. That is lacking in the congressional 
area. We have a complete OK Corral situation where any amount of money 
can be spent, and there are no rules to speak of about how much is 
spent in these elections. So nothing would be more helpful than to have 
the President tonight mention the fact that he has been and continues 
to be very supportive of campaign finance reform.
  I think he knows there is a unique opportunity in the Congress this 
year. Working with Senator McCain of Arizona and others we have 
introduced the first bipartisan campaign finance reform bill in 10 
years. It is a voluntary bill, as it must be under the Supreme Court 
rule in Buckley versus Valeo, but it addresses several of the major 
areas of concern. It addresses that there is too much money spent in 
individual elections. It addresses the fact that we would like to 
encourage candidates to get a majority of their campaign contributions 
from their own home States. It for the first time addresses the problem 
that too many people are spending their own personal fortunes to be 
elected.
  All of these things are addressed in the bill. I am hoping the 
President has been made aware of that and is supportive.
  What is even more exciting is, it is not only bipartisan but it is 
bicameral. In the House there was another bill being promoted that 
several of the House Members said, why do we not look at the Senate 
bill? They made their own version of the McCain-Feingold bill, and they 
have many supporters of both parties involved. People in the country 
have noticed.
  A bipartisan, bicameral bill endorsed by over 25 major newspapers in 
this country--Common Cause, Public Citizen, and many other groups.
  Mr. President, I think one of the reasons why it has received such 
reception from the public is that people know that it is not just a 
question of too much money being spent in elections. They know there is 
a connection between what is spent in Washington on campaigns, what is 
connected to things like why we cannot solve our budget problem, why 
there is too much money spent in Washington, even though the public is 
begging us to get our finances under control.
  In fact, I think there is a direct connection between campaign 
financing, overspending in campaigns, the drive to raise all the money 
you can, and the fact that we still have not resolved the deficit 
problem. The ability of many special interests to secure millions, and 
sometimes billions, of taxpayers' dollars in Federal contracts and 
subsidies and other spending programs relates directly to our current 
campaign finance system where candidates for public office must raise 
millions of dollars for their campaigns.
  A report was just issued by the Center for Responsive Politics 
entitled ``Cashing in From A to Z.'' It is a long report, but they list 
a few recent examples that I think the public can respond to. Cattle 
and sheep ranch interests contributed over $600,000 during the 

[[Page S295]]
last election cycle while fighting to protect Federal grazing fee 
policies that give ranchers access to Federal lands at below-market 
prices.
  The mining industry spent over $1 million in 1993-94 on campaign 
contributions to Members of Congress so that they could try to prevent 
the reform of the 1872 mining law which allows people to pay a few 
thousand dollars for land that contains billions of dollars worth of 
gold and silver and other minerals.
  The oil and gas interests contributed over $6.1 million during the 
last election cycle to help back their hefty 1995 agenda, which 
included repeal of the alternative minimum tax. They do not even want 
to pay a minimum tax for all the profits they are making.
  Mr. President, in the 6 weeks following a close House vote on funding 
the B-2 bomber, opposed by even the Defense Department, contributions 
from defense contractor Northrop Grumman's PAC's to House Members who 
voted for the program totaled over $50,000, just from that one company 
for that one program that the Defense Department did not even want.
  Mr. President, obviously I could go on with these examples, but they 
show the fact it is not just a question of there being too much money 
in campaigns, but the connection between campaigns and the fact that we 
still have a terrible budget and deficit problem in this country.
  So, Mr. President, it has become clear to many of us, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, that their failed campaign finance system 
contributes to keeping many unnecessary Government subsidies flowing, 
and it helps explain why well-financed special interests were able to 
grab the legislative process by the scruff of the neck in the first 
place.
  Mr. President, it is my fond hope the President of the United States 
will use his bully pulpit and excellent intentions on this issue to 
give a strong push behind the bicameral, bipartisan effort to reform 
our campaign finance laws.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________