[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.
____________________