[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S401-S416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, I

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have been working with the leadership, 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the distinguished 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We have an agreement 
worked out on proceeding with the continuing resolution and the first 
amendment that would be offered thereto.
  So, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn to the consideration 
of H.R. 2880, the continuing resolution, and Senator Kennedy be 
immediately recognized to offer an amendment regarding education, that 
no amendments be in order to the amendment, and there be 1 hour and 30 
minutes, equally divided, for debate in the usual form; following 
conclusion or yielding back of time, the majority leader or his 
designee be recognized to make a motion to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not 
intend to object but is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
going to make a statement for the record?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia will yield, I believe he will. He is on his way to the floor 
at this moment, so he should be here momentarily.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I have a statement also. I wonder if it would be 
agreeable for the chairman and ranking member to proceed with their 
statements first? That is the normal thing to do.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think that is certainly appropriate. I 
would like to amend the unanimous-consent request to state that after 
the opening statements by the leadership of the committee, we then 
immediately proceed to the amendment by Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority whip for 
his courtesy.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that once 
the Kennedy amendment has been disposed of, Senator Moynihan be 
recognized to offer an amendment regarding the debt limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. For the information of Senators, we do expect to have votes 
to begin sometime around--I guess it would be 2:30, between 2:30 and 
2:45, depending, of course, on the length of the opening statements. 
But after this time has been used or yielded back, we will have a vote 
then between 2:30 and 2:45.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2880) making appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996 to make a downpayment toward a balanced budget, and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have before us now the continuing 
resolution that the House acted upon last night, H.R. 2880. The 
existing continuing resolution expires today at midnight, the 26th. All 
of us want to avoid another shutdown of the Federal Government, and its 
departments' and agencies' funding in the appropriations bills not yet 
signed into law. Therefore, we need to act expeditiously on the measure 
now before us, which provides for continued operations until March 
15th.
  For the activities funded in the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, 
and related agencies appropriations bills and the VA-HUD appropriations 
bill, the measure before us will provide funding at the levels 
established in the conference agreements on those bills generally under 
the terms and conditions of fiscal year 1995. The exception is made for 
the Department of Justice, which will operate at fiscal year 1996 
funding levels, under fiscal year 1996 terms and conditions.
  Activities funded in the Interior and related agencies appropriations 
bill and the Labor-HHS, Education and related agencies appropriations 
bill will continue to operate until March 15 at the lower of the 
funding levels established in the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed 
bill, or the current rate.
  The exceptions made for activities of the Indian Health Service and 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service of the U.S. 
Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which will 
operate until March 15 at the levels established in the conference 
agreement on the Interior.
  Further, special provision is made for the activities funded in the 
foreign operations bill. My colleagues will recall that for fiscal year 
1996, the foreign operations bill has been a contention between the 
House and the Senate for some time over the matter of population 
planning assistance programs. The Senate has voted three times on this 
matter, one during the Senate consideration of the bill reported from 
our committee and twice in connection with an amendment in disagreement 
on the conference report.
  Since the House returned the bill to us in November after further 
insisting on its position, we have found ourselves in an extraordinary 
parliamentary situation that requires unanimous consent--unanimous 
consent--to take further action. Unable to secure that consent, we have 
been unable to once again uphold a Senate position, or even to have the 
Senate consider a compromise.

  To break that impasse, the House has now presented us with provisions 
in the measure which will fund all activities in the Foreign Operations 
bill with the exception of population planning assistance at the level 
of the conference agreement for the remainder of the fiscal year 1996. 
There will be no funding for population planning assistance programs 
until July 1, unless expressly authorized. And, as you know, the 
authorization bill has yet to be completed. Following July 1, funding 
may be provided at 65 percent of the fiscal year 1995 level apportioned 
on a monthly basis for 15 months.
  Mr. President, this is a near calamitous formulation of these 
programs, and it may very well provoke a result entirely antiethical to 
the ``pro-life'' position. These programs promote family planning and 
birth control in the developing nations of the world. Without them, 
there will inevitably be more unwanted pregnancies, which will result 
in either more abortions or more unwanted children facing lives of 
disease and deprivation.
  I cannot for the life of me understand the action of the House. I 
believe it is wrong. It puts the gun to our heads, 

[[Page S402]]
Mr. President. I speak as a pro-life Senator. I do not see any reason, 
any legitimate rationale, that people who stand in a pro-life position 
should do a thing of this kind to increase the possibilities of 
abortion--increase them, not diminish them.
  There is a substantial majority in this Senate that would reject the 
cuts in population planning assistance, and I am one. But if we prevail 
on amendment, the bill must be returned to the House for an uncertain 
future, and a Government shutdown could ensue. I am not sure the House 
is in a business position this afternoon or this evening to take 
further action on this. We are sort of in one of those situations 
where, as I say, it is a gun to our head. Otherwise, we then stand the 
responsibility of shutting down the Government.
  This predicament graphically illustrates why we should avoid 
continuing resolutions of any sort. As our former chairman, Senator 
Byrd, has told us many times, the right to debate and amend is the very 
essence of the Senate. We, in effect, are being deprived of this by 
this timetable and this kind of procedure. When we allow ourselves to 
get into this position, we risk losing those rights.

  Now, Mr. President, I do not blame our colleagues in the other body 
entirely. It is not their job to protect our prerogatives. But I will 
say that the Senate cannot and will not indefinitely forgo its right to 
amend. Perhaps we should consider initiating further action in this 
realm rather than waiting for the House to act and then hand us a 
document that is a fait accompli. We may not prevail, but we will not 
be reduced to the mere ministerial function of approving what the other 
body may determine and hand to us.
  With that off my chest, Mr. President, let me summarize briefly the 
other major provisions of this bill and yield the floor to Senator 
Byrd, our ranking member and former chairman, for any opening comments 
he wishes to make.
  The no-furlough provision of prior continuing resolutions has been 
dropped. A new provision is included, however, to give agency managers 
the flexibility to avoid immediate severe staffing reductions. 
Flexibility.
  Ten programs in the Labor-HHS bill are terminated. New grants for 
another two dozen are held to 75 percent of their prior monthly rate.
  I would like to also indicate on this one there has been 
communication at least from our side with the White House and the 
agencies involved, and even as late as last night I had further 
conversation with the Secretary of HHS, and it is not one of those 
things that is perhaps advocated or welcomed, but there is at least an 
indication of acquiescence to these actions on the part of the 
administration.
  Travel by Cabinet Secretaries in excess of 110 percent of the 1995 
average is prohibited. A national security exemption is granted for 
defense, the Secretary of Defense, that is, the Secretary of State, the 
Director of the CIA, and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
  Authority is granted for the sale of a House office building.
  Section 128 prohibits certain embryo research. I might indicate that 
no such research is underway or contemplated at this time, but it is a 
further definition of the congressional position.
  Provision is made for the sale of oil from the Weeks Island facility 
of the strategic petroleum reserve in keeping with the conference 
agreement on the interior bill.
  Legislative provisions from the VA-HUD conference agreement that will 
achieve significant savings in the operation of housing programs are 
included.

  The maximum Pell grant award is established to be at least $2,440. 
That is a $100 increase over the previous fiscal year.
  Those are the issues. Those are the parts of this bill that we will 
be discussing and hopefully act upon in an expeditious manner.
  At this time, I thank also the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] and the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] for entering into 
a time agreement on their two amendments to further expedite this 
process.
  Mr. President, again, I wish to say this is not the kind of document 
I believe would have come out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. 
Yet, we are in this situation. I wish I could be enthusiastic about 
this product, but I do see the fact that we live with it but until 
March 15. And hopefully within that period of time we can resolve these 
differences and have them peeled out of the CR and enacted in a regular 
form with the consensus of both the House and the Senate in the product 
rather than this being exclusively a House product.
  Mr. President, I now yield to my good friend and colleague and mentor 
and compatriot who shares the misery, as we share misery together in 
the many duties that we have to perform. And I thank the Senator from 
West Virginia again for his cooperation, for the fine cooperation 
between Keith Kennedy and Jim English representing our respective 
staffs, that represent a bipartisan approach to as many issues as 
possible within the context and the framework of this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I also thank my 
colleague, my cherished colleague, the distinguished senior Senator 
from Oregon, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, from whom I 
have learned much, indeed. I thank him for his very thoughtful remarks. 
They were cogently articulated, reasonable in every degree. I share 
with him a concern about the situation that has developed in which the 
Senate at least for a time is being deprived of its right to amend, in 
essence it is being deprived of its right to amend. We do not have to 
agree to that. But that is a right of the Senate which the Framers were 
very careful to include in the Constitution of the United States, which 
says that revenue bills shall begin in the other body, but the Senate 
shall have the right to amend as in all other bills. So we, I think, 
have to zealously guard those rights but at the same time we have to 
keep in mind some other circumstances that are prevailing at the 
moment.
  Mr. President, the House of Representatives has chosen to call the 
pending measure ``The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, I.'' In reality, 
H.R. 2880, the pending measure, is the latest in an unprecedented 
string of continuing resolutions. H.R. 2880 is the ninth continuing 
resolution for fiscal year 1996, and since this resolution will expire 
on March 15, 1996, it is likely that one or more additional continuing 
resolutions will be required subsequent to the enactment of H.R. 2880.
  I have been advised by the Congressional Research Service that this 
is by far the largest number of continuing resolutions for any fiscal 
year since 1977, and perhaps the most for any year. During Mr. Reagan's 
8 years in the White House, which covered fiscal years 1982-1989, 
continuing resolutions were the norm. In fact, for every year except 
President Reagan's last year in office--fiscal year 1989--continuing 
resolutions were required. But, over this 8-year period the largest 
number of continuing resolutions that were required for any 1 year 
during Mr. Reagan's terms was fiscal year 1987, when six continuing 
resolutions were required. In three other years, fiscal years 1985, 
1986, and 1988, five continuing resolutions were required; for fiscal 
year 1982, four continuing resolutions were required; and for fiscal 
years 1983 and 1984, two continuing resolutions were required.
  During President Bush's 4 years in the White House, fiscal years 
1990-1993, three continuing resolutions were required in his first year 
in office, fiscal year 1990, and five continuing resolutions were 
required for fiscal year 1991, the year of the 1990 budget summit. At 
the end of that summit, it was determined that a full-year continuing 
resolution should be enacted for all 13 appropriation bills and that 
was done on November 5, 1990. For fiscal year 1992, four continuing 
resolutions were required; and for fiscal year 1993, one continuing 
resolution was required to carry appropriation measures through October 
5th in order to give the President time to sign all appropriation bills 
for that year.
  It is not unusual for a number of continuing resolutions to be 
required for any given fiscal year to give the President and Congress 
time to complete their work on annual appropriation bills. But this is 
a different situation. Never before in my memory have the 

[[Page S403]]
Congress and the President been unable to reach a successful conclusion 
on the amounts to be appropriated for the 13 appropriation bills 
without having to pass nine and perhaps even more continuing 
resolutions.
  This has been a unique year in that respect, but it is 
understandable. The Republican leadership in Congress feels very 
strongly about not only the levels of funding they think should be 
appropriated for a number of these appropriation bills, but also about 
a number of legislative, policy-type issues that they have chosen to 
attach to each of the six unsigned fiscal year 1996 appropriation 
bills. The President has made it clear that he is unable to sign five 
of the remaining bills because of insufficient funds or because of the 
legislative riders attached to them, or both. So it appears that this 
impasse is unlikely to be resolved until a final determination is made 
in relation to the 7-year budget agreement. The President hopes that 
such an agreement, if achieved, would result in additional 
discretionary spending for fiscal year 1996 and other years. If those 
additional funds are allocated, obviously the difficulties remaining on 
the six unsigned appropriation bills would be greatly lessened. Even 
then, however, the issue of legislative riders will have to be 
resolved.
  So, it is difficult to know when or if we will be able to finally 
enact appropriations for the remaining fiscal year 1996 appropriation 
bills for the rest of the fiscal year.
  Meanwhile, turning to the pending measure, let me compliment the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Hatfield, as well as the very 
capable and articulate chairman of the House appropriations committee, 
Mr. Livingston, for their efforts in putting together this bill. They 
and their staffs worked very closely with Mr. Obey, the distinguished 
ranking minority Member of the House Appropriations Committee, and with 
my office and our staffs in attempting to solve as many problems as we 
could in connection with this current continuing resolution.
  Mr. President, I also want to thank our staffs. The names have 
already been mentioned by the distinguished chairman. I would simply 
say without their expertise and their dedication and hard work, we 
would not be where we are today. But this bipartisan approach was, I am 
sure, a key reason why this bill passed the House by a vote of 371 to 
42.
  I will not give a brief summary of the bill. The distinguished 
chairman has already laid that in the Record. I will just simply 
include that in my remarks.
  The resolution as passed by the House funds four bills through March 
15, 1996: VA/HUD, Commerce/Justice/State, Interior, and Labor/HHS.
  The resolution funds the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill 
through the balance of the fiscal year, September 30, 1996, at the 
levels contained in the conference report on the bill. Also included in 
the foreign operations portion in the resolution is a special provision 
prohibiting population assistance funding until July 1, 1996, unless 
expressly authorized.
  A floor of 75 percent of fiscal year 1995 funding has been set for 
certain programs which would have received little or no funding. Those 
programs are: Advanced Technology Program; Ounce of Prevention Council; 
GLOBE/Climate change-Internet; Cops on the Beat; Drug Courts; 
AmeriCorps; Community Development Financial Institutions; and HHS 
Office of Consumer Affairs.
  Additionally, the resolution contains a number of general provisions, 
among which are the following: travel expenses of Cabinet Secretaries 
may not exceed 110 percent of the 1990-1995 average, except for 
Defense, State, CIA, and the Ambassador to the United Nations; Section 
128 of the bill prohibits the use of funds for embryo research; ``no-
furlough'' language of the existing continuing resolution is dropped 
but furloughs are limited to no more than one day per pay period per 
employee; full furlough protection for the Council on Environmental 
Quality; a freeze of new grants and elimination of 10 programs in 
Labor/HHS; the Architect of the Capitol is directed to sell an excess 
House Office Building; a maximum Pell Grant of ``at least'' $2,440 
($100 above fiscal year 1995); and $1.2 billion in legislative savings 
agreed to in the VA/HUD conference.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, while I would prefer to have enacted 
all of the 13 appropriation bills through the balance of the fiscal 
year in this measure, that was not possible for the reasons that I have 
stated. Under the circumstances that we face, I believe that this 
measure is the best that we can achieve at this time. The House passed 
it overwhelmingly; the President indicated that he will sign the 
measure when it reaches his desk; so I urge my colleagues to refrain 
from offering amendments to the measure unless they address urgent and 
critical matters. Failure to enact H.R. 2880 by midnight tonight would 
result in another government shutdown, which is an unacceptable 
alternative.
  I urge the adoption of H.R. 2880.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Massachusetts is now recognized to offer his amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 3119

         (Purpose: To maintain funding for education programs)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of myself, Senator Jeffords, Senator Snowe, Senator Simon, Senator 
Bingaman, Senator Wellstone, Senator Pell, Senator Dodd, Senator Reid, 
Senator Harkin, and others, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Simon, Mr. Pell, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
     Reid, Ms. Murray, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. 
     Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 3119.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I, insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act (except sections 106, 115, 119 and 120), the amount 
     appropriated for each education program under this Act shall 
     be not be less than the amount made available for such 
     education program under the Departments of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1995.
       (b) For the purpose of subsection (a), the term ``education 
     program'' means each continuing project or activity of the 
     Department of Education and each continuing project or 
     activity under the Head Start Act and the School-to-Work 
     Opportunities Act of 1994.

  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, at the request of the two leaders, the 
time allocated for this was to be an hour and a half evenly divided. I 
would yield myself now 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we are asked to consider the fourth 
temporary funding measure of this fiscal year. The proposed continuing 
resolution, if extended for the entire year, contains the largest 
education cut in the Nation's history, over $3 billion, and will cause 
disruption and chaos in colleges and school districts across the 
country.
  President Clinton has made clear that he will not consider a budget 
agreement unless it protects education. But the longer we accept these 
short-term cuts, the more damage is being done to the very areas, 
particularly education, that we have vowed to protect. We are in danger 
of accepting, through the back door, what we would have never accepted 
through the front door.
  This amendment, cosponsored by Senators Simon, Jeffords, Snowe, and 
others, stops the hemorrhage of Federal education dollars. It provides 
funds for education programs at the 1995 levels, so that schools and 
colleges have the funds they need to plan for the next academic year. 
Without those funds, schools and colleges across the country face 
drastic cuts in vital education programs.
  Boston, for example, is required by State law to submit its school 
budget for next year to its school committee by the first Wednesday in 
February. The school committee must submit its 

[[Page S404]]
budget to the mayor by the last Wednesday in March. Teacher contracts 
require teachers to be notified of any layoffs for the next year by May 
15, or else teachers must be paid for the entire year.
  Because there are no 1996 figures for key Federal programs, the city, 
for example, must adopt a budget based on the worst-case level of 
funding for the title I program. This 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. They will also have to lay off teachers.
  The Detroit public schools are planning their budget for a worst-case 
scenario, will lose $16 million in title I alone--an 18-percent cut 
that will force them to lay off 419 teachers and serve 10,000 fewer 
students. They will also lose $4 million in Medicaid funding that helps 
pay for 800 special education teachers and medical professionals. 
Detroit Superintendent Dr. David Snead says that the burden of these 
Federal cuts will be transferred squarely onto the back of the local 
school district. Mr. President, the list goes on.
  According to Lyn Guy, superintendent of Monroe County Public Schools 
in West Virginia--25 percent of her $13.5 million budget comes from 
Federal funds. Her district has begun its planning process, and she has 
no choice but to plan for the lowest cuts. She must announce teacher 
contract renewals by April 1, and she expects to be forced to lay off 
15 to 20 teachers in her 6 schools. Yet in Monroe County, the public 
school system is the largest employer and teachers are the highest paid 
workers. A loss of 15 to 20 teacher jobs will cause significant 
economic hardship.
  In addition to personnel cuts, Monroe County will have to dismantle 
programs begun last year that are helping the district serve children 
from birth to 8 years old more effectively. It will be forced to 
eliminate a coordinated services project begun this year to bring 
comprehensive health and nutrition services to all students. It will 
also be forced to eliminate Project TLC, which uses title I and Head 
Start funds to help children come to school ready to learn. It will be 
forced to eliminate the Parents as Teachers Program, which brought 50 
parent volunteers to the elementary schools that had never had parent 
volunteers before.
  Mr. President, this chart here indicates where we have been going in 
the recent years in education funding. We have seen a modest increase 
in total numbers over the past few years. This $0.9 billion, almost $1 
billion, increase also reflects a $600 million rescission from the last 
year.
  All we are trying to do is go back to the 1995 levels. If this 
continuing resolution that is before us today were extended for a year, 
we would effectively cut $3.1 billion from the 1995 levels, which would 
be the largest cut in education in the history of the United States. It 
is not warranted. It is not justified.
  Mr. President, the effect of this will mean some 1,100,000 children 
that are receiving the title I services for extra help in reading and 
math would be denied those services, and 31,000 teachers would be laid 
off. More than 250,000 students who otherwise would be eligible for 
Pell grants, will not be eligible.
  In the Safe and Drug-free Schools Program, 14,000 school districts 
will eliminate or drastically reduce their drug abuse and violence 
prevention programs. The Goals 2000 Program, which helps States and 
districts establish the higher standards for students across the 
country, would be slashed.
  Mr. President, we have to ask ourselves where these priorities are. 
This is a simple amendment. All we are trying to do, for the period of 
this amendment, which is some 49 days, is to say that we will set the 
mark for these school districts and for the colleges at the 1995 level. 
We are not extending the continuing resolution for a year, and that is 
explicit in the legislation.
  Mr. President, arguments are going to be made here that if we extend 
the continuing resolution, with our amendment, for a year, it will take 
scarce resources from other programs. What we have before us, Mr. 
President, and before the country is what the President offered the 
other evening, and that was his hand to the Republican leadership in 
the House and Senate to work out an agreement. Every one of us want the 
agreement to work out. But the President also said that he will work 
out an agreement to protect education.
  If we are going to continue the funding of education at 75 percent of 
the 1995 level, we are going to be sending the message to school 
districts and colleges across this country to count on a significant 
cutback in funding, and that is not correct.
  So, Mr. President, we are hopeful that this amendment will be 
accepted. We are prepared to deal with the various challenges that will 
be made about the budget order and various procedures and allocations 
in various agreements. What we have seen at other times is that when an 
agreement is going to be made between the President and the Congress, 
and he is going to make that agreement with regard to education, then 
the ceilings and limits and terms of allocations under the Budget Act 
will be expanded.
  This is in the best tradition of a bipartisan education effort. We 
have seen for years that Republicans and Democrats work together in 
education. We saw it last year when the Senator from Illinois and the 
Senator from Maine worked together to bring us all together with 67 
votes indicating the Nation's priorities on education.
  Today, we are trying to make sure that in these final hours, when 
this legislation was called up at 2 o'clock on a Friday afternoon with 
a 1\1/2\-hour debate on this measure, without having the full knowledge 
of what was going to be included in that continuing resolution until 6 
or 7 o'clock last night, that we can raise this important issue. We 
believe that this is the kind of amendment that the American people 
stand for.
  I will introduce in the Record the sentiments which have been 
expressed by the American people on education. More than 80 percent of 
the American people say, Do not cut education programs. We are 
supporting the elimination of those education programs which have been 
eliminated in the continuing resolution. But when you are talking about 
Head Start, when you are talking about moving children from high school 
into work, School to Work, when you are talking about title I, when you 
are talking about the Pell grants, when you are talking about the 
Perkins loan program, when you are talking about Safe and Drug-free 
Schools, when we are going to see our school population increase by 10 
percent--some 8 million children--we ought to be willing to say that no 
matter how necessary it is to balance the budget--and it is--we are not 
going to do it on the backs of the schoolchildren of this country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania controls 45 
minutes. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 37 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I agree with a great deal of what the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts has had to say. During the course of my 
tenure in the Senate, I have been a strong supporter of education 
funding. I am the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee which 
funds education, and when the Senate drew a larger education allocation 
than the House did, I took the lead, along with Senator Harkin, the 
distinguished ranking minority member, in putting the $1.5 billion 
extra all into education.
  I would like to see education funded at the 1995 level. But the 
import of this amendment, as I understand it, and I qualify it to that 
extent because we are dealing in great complexities--one thing I 
strongly disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts on is when he 
says this is a simple amendment. If there is anything that I think is 
plain, it is that this is not simple.
  As I have gone through the work with very able staff in trying to 
understand the implications of this matter, because I did not get 
notice of it until a telephone call from Senator Kennedy last evening, 
there would be a reduction--if I may have the attention of the Senator 
from Massachusetts, because I would like to have a dialog with the 
Senator. We just had one informally before the amendment was called up, 
and I think we ought to have a discussion to see if we can agree as to 
what the import of this amendment is or if we can agree to disagree. 

[[Page S405]]

  As I understand the amendment, if these funds came to fruition in the 
context of what we currently have available, there would be a 10.5-
percent reduction across the board in funding on the subcommittee 
appropriations which covers the Departments of Education and Labor and 
Health and Human Services.
  So if we come to employment and training programs--and I know that no 
one is a stauncher advocate for that than the Senator from 
Massachusetts, although there are some equally as strong, such as 
Senator Kassebaum, myself, and others--there would be a reduction of 
almost $334 million. And if this spending came to fruition without an 
increase in the allocation, there would be a decrease in spending on 
NIH, the National Institutes of Health, of $1.253 billion, and on 
LIHEAP--so necessary in Massachusetts, as well as Pennsylvania and 
many, many other States; the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, 
Senator Wellstone, has spoken emphatically on this subject, as well as 
many others--there would be a decrease in funding of $105 million.
  When Senator Kennedy says we need to know what funding will be 
available for education, I agree with him totally. But if his amendment 
is adopted, there will be a doubt as to what the funding will be for 
NIH, for employment and training programs, and for many, many programs, 
so it will all be confused.
  When he says President Clinton extended his hand to work out an 
arrangement here, when he extended his hand, I stood up and extended 
mine when he made that point in his speech about Americans working 
together. But I suggest that this amendment is not going to accomplish 
the purposes the Senator from Massachusetts looks for.
  When he says it is for 49 days, it is not annualized, that is true, 
but what does it mean? If it only lasts for 49 days and the funds are 
not expended until July 1 and after, nothing will happen unless there 
is an increase in the allocation for this subcommittee----
  Mr. President, will you call the Senate to order, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). I thank the Senator. The Senate is 
not in order.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if the Senator from 
Massachusetts is correct, that it is not annualized, that it stands for 
only 49 days, no other funds are added and this money is then spent for 
education, which I would like to see, it is going to come out of other 
programs.
  If the Senator from Massachusetts wants to make a point that we 
discussed privately, I would like to find a way to do that. I have sat 
repeatedly, as recently as the day before yesterday, with Congressman 
Porter, who chairs the House committee, trying to preconference a 
report covering education.
  We have not been able to bring this bill to the floor because of a 
disagreement. I am prepared to accept 50 percent of the responsibility. 
I would like to divide it equally between the Democrats and the 
Republicans for a change, instead of arguing that it is all the 
Democrats because you are filibustering striker replacement, or it is 
all the Republicans. We have not brought it to the floor, and there is 
enough blame on all sides.
  The question I ask the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is, 
on the basis of the current allocation for the subcommittee which 
covers education and also the Departments of Health, Human Services and 
Labor, if that figure is not increased, and if the amendment stands, if 
it is adopted and is not rescinded, is it not true that, if you add 
this money to education and the allocation for the subcommittee stands, 
there will have to be a $686 million reduction from the AIDS funding 
for the Ryan White Program? That is my question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The answer to the Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield on the Senator's time, if I can.
  Mr. SPECTER. I say to Senator Kennedy, why not take your time? This 
is an argument on your behalf.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will come back and answer it, but I have a number of 
Senators who are here. It was at the request of the majority side that 
we limit our time in this way, over my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield to 
the Senator from Massachusetts?
  Mr. KENNEDY. When the Senator is going to yield the floor, I will 
make a brief comment, and then I want to be able to yield time to 
others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will yield time, reasonably, to the Senator from 
Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry. What are the magic words if I 
want to regain the floor after yielding the time if the Senator goes 
too long?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can reclaim the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield to the Senator on my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I listened to the Senator's question. The Senator may 
not like the answer, but I am going to give the answer that I believe 
is responsive to the question.
  The other side of what the Senator asked is committing this country, 
over the period of the next year, for the 25-percent cut in many 
programs, which is in effect in the continuing resolution. I say I am 
not prepared to accept those allocations that the Senator has 
mentioned, the straitjacket that the Senator has indicated we put 
ourselves into, because I believe that that straitjacket can be lifted, 
and the American people are going to demand that we lift it.
  If the Senator is saying, look, we have agreed to some procedure and 
therefore we are going to see a continuing diminution of support for 
education, I reject that. I will join with the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, because he has been a leader in this body, in making sure 
that we are going to have adequate funding. I say that the best way to 
get that adequate funding is to accept this amendment and build on that 
with the President and the congressional leaders, as they work out a 
final agreement on the balanced budget to reflect the President's 
priorities and the American people's priorities, and that is to 
increase the funding on education, certainly not to cut it 25 percent.
  Mr. SPECTER. My next question for the Senator from Massachusetts is, 
is it not true that if the funding is not increased and the amendment 
of the Senator from Massachusetts stands, that there will be a decrease 
of $1.253 billion from NIH?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield on my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, that question is like saying, if we 
accept what happened here in the U.S. Senate in cuts on Medicare and 
Medicaid, we are going to have to live with them. I reject that 
premise. The President rejects that, and the American people do. The 
way we are going to see the significant cuts of some 25 percent on the 
education budget and these $3.1 billion cuts is by rejecting this 
amendment. We will be able to deal with the allocations as part of the 
overall agreement, which, as I understand, there are negotiations 
between Republicans and the President at the same time. The President 
supports this amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I take the answer from the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts to be a yes. The import of his answer is 
that there will be a decrease in NIH funding, and there will be a 
decrease in funding for every other program covered by the 
appropriations allocation for my subcommittee, which has the Department 
of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, as well as the 
Department of Education.
  I have asked the question twice, and twice the Senator from 
Massachusetts has said that he does not accept the allocation. Well, I 
do not accept the allocation either, but Senator Kennedy does not run 
the U.S. Government, and neither does Arlen Specter. Before there is 
going to be a change in the allocation, there has to be an agreement 
between the executive branch, the President, and the Congress of the 
United States. Right now, what we are dealing with is an allocation for 
three departments. I do not like the allocation, but that is the 
allocation. And you cannot take $3 billion and add it to education 
without crippling many, many other vital accounts. You will be taking 
an enormous amount of funding out of the older worker's jobs program, 
community and migrant mental health 

[[Page S406]]
centers, maternal and child care, substance abuse; and if I did not 
have a limitation of time, I could go through many, many programs, 
which I know the Senator from Massachusetts would not want to take 
funding out of.
  But the answer is--and it is reading between the lines on what the 
Senator from Massachusetts has responded--these programs will lose 
funding under the current allocation. I am prepared to fight with him 
to increase the allocation. But I am not prepared to see an amendment 
pass here today which gives false and unrealistic hopes to the 
education community. It is not even Confederate money that Senator 
Kennedy is offering here today, it is illusory money, it is pie-in-the-
sky. He says it lasts for 49 days. There is no expenditure in that 
period of time. If it lasts longer, he is going to gut many, many other 
programs.
  So I think it just has to be rejected.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 32 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 seconds. If the Senator 
wants to continue to defend the Republican position of having $245 
billion in tax cuts as part of his premise, when we are going ahead and 
cutting these education programs, go ahead. But this President is not 
accepting it, and this Congress is not accepting it.
  We are stating, with this amendment, our priorities. It is in 
education. There are good bean counters around here, but we are talking 
about the hearts and souls of the American people. If we gut the $245 
billion, when the President sits down, he is going to say, Let us put 
at least $3 billion of that right back here in education.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields 5 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am a little surprised to hear the 
Senator from Massachusetts make the statement that this Senator 
supports a $245 billion tax cut. I am surprised to hear the Senator 
from Massachusetts make that representation because, even though he 
cannot be on the floor all the time, I know he very seriously reads the 
Congressional Record. He must have noted my vote against the tax cut 
repeatedly when it came up on the reconciliation bill. This Senator has 
not supported any tax cut at all.
  On my time, let me ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he agrees 
with President Clinton that there ought to be a $130 billion tax cut.
  Mr. KENNEDY. On the Senator's time, I supported the tax cut for 
tuition and also for the child care program. I think it ought to be 
somewhat smaller. But the Senator knows that he is speaking as the 
floor manager for the majority party. He can have an independent 
position, but to disclaim the fact that his side of the aisle is 
committed to a $245 billion tax cut and to also cut back education is 
disingenuous, I would say.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, let me make strong exception to the 
Senator from Massachusetts using the word ``disingenuous.'' That is the 
most inappropriate thing he has said here today, among many 
inappropriate things. I am interested to know that he supports a tax 
cut.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized and has 
been yielded 5 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
amendment. I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for the work he has 
done. I am on the subcommittee. I know what an incredibly difficult job 
it is to try and divide too few dollars among too many very valuable 
and worthwhile programs. I also believe that at this critical time, in 
this year when all of the cities and towns of my State and others are 
trying to figure out what they are going to be doing with their 
education budgets for the next year. They have the problem of having to 
notify teachers of their plans. It appears that the track we're on now 
does not provide schools with sufficient information to make decisions. 
It would be much better to do what we are proposing in this amendment, 
and that is to let them know that at least is they should be able to 
plan on not having any substantial cuts in the educational programs.
  If I read the minds of the budgeteers as represented in their 
statements to the press, the only real agreement that has come out is 
there should not only be no cuts in education, but that education 
services should be increased to account for inflation. There seems to 
be unanimity even within the House on this point. I do not think we are 
in any way misrepresenting to our people if we say that this year we 
should at least have a freeze on funding at the 1995 levels. That is 
even less than it appears they have agreed to at the summit.
  What we have in Vermont, and I am sure across the country--we have 
all our town meetings in March. We have all the dates that we have to 
send out notices on contracts. The 45 days provided for in this 
continuing resolution will take us almost halfway through the fiscal 
year and yet this continuing resolution leaves the Senate on record 
saying to States figure it out for yourselves.
  If the budgeteers, in principle, have agreed to giving current 
services--it will create problems for the Appropriations Committee. 
However, those dollars do not necessarily have to come out of the 
allocation of the education subcommittee. There can be allocations from 
other subcommittees to fund education programs at the current services 
level. We can do anything in the Senate and the House if we work 
together to make promises and to keep promises to the people.
  In all 50 States, 14,000 school districts are currently developing 
their financial plans for the 1996-97 school year. As I said, it is 
extremely difficult to move forward on such planning without a funding 
resolution in place.
  It has been pointed out that 80 percent of those who are in favor of 
a balanced budget, those who are fiscally conservative, have said, ``Do 
not cut education.'' Passage of this amendment would show that the 
Congress of the United States is living up to what has already been 
agreed to in principle in the budget discussions.
  For instance, if you have to lay off 10 percent of your teachers, who 
do you notify? You have to notify them all, probably, because you do 
not know which ones you will pick--the terrible dilemmas that will go 
on if we do not give them an idea if there will be funding available. 
In Vermont, layoff notices will have to go out in March.
  In Vermont, we lose $2.4 million for title 1, which accounts for 
2,000 students. The current budget situation creates chaos in Vermont's 
town meetings because they have little guidance in setting their 
budgets.
  I am hopeful this amendment will pass. I cannot believe that the 
Congress, working with the President, will not agree to what they have 
already agreed to in the budget discussions. That is, we should not cut 
education, at least carrying through another 45 days, and hopefully, 
then, of course, we can get a further commitment to the funds that are 
necessary to do what must be done.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, and then 
the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first of all, in response to what Senator 
Specter had to say, we are not asking that these funds be taken out of 
the Ryan White Program or NIH. Everyone knows the budget figures are 
not written in stone yet.
  Ask the American people, instead of a $245 billion tax cut, should we 
have a $240 billion tax cut or $5 billion more for education, and 90 
percent of the American people would say, ``Let's do that.''
  Every economic study that has been made--conservative, liberal, 
whatever--says we have to do more in education in this country, both 
quantitatively and qualitatively. Yet, you look at those figures on the 
graph back there that Senator Kennedy has, and they are even warped to 
this extent: They do not count inflation. When you eliminate inflation, 
for example, on that $900 million, that brings it down to about zero 
for 1995. When you add inflation to the $3.1 billion cut, that brings 
it up to a $4 billion cut.
  What does this mean in practical terms? The Chicago School District 
really is a struggling school district, 

[[Page S407]]
and they see us cutting back. They get 15 percent of their funds from 
the Federal Government. They are making the assumption, on the basis of 
these 25 percent cuts, that they will get 18 percent less Federal 
funding. That may be optimistic. On the basis of that, they are 
planning to discharge 600 teachers.
  Does anyone believe we can build a better Chicago or Illinois or 
America by discharging 600 teachers in a desperate school district in 
urban America?
  What about our colleges and universities? Students going to colleges 
and universities right now say, ``What kind of help can I get when I go 
to the University of Idaho,'' or whatever school it is. Colleges and 
universities are saying, ``We cannot tell you.''
  Now, I recognize that the continuing resolution in theory raises the 
Pell grant to $2,440. But that is public relations. Am I for that? 
Sure. I want to raise it to $10,000. I am for it. These are not 
entitlements. I would love to make an entitlement out of that program. 
Those have to be appropriated. So while we raise the Pell grant to 
$2,440, we say we are cutting back on the appropriations to make that 
possible. That is just nonsense.
  What we are doing here is sending a signal to the House, to the 
American public, as you work out a budget agreement, education has to 
be a priority. That ought to be a simple reality that every American, 
every Senator, every House Member can recognize.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I again agree with a good bit--almost 
all--of what the distinguished Senator from Illinois has had to say. 
However, if we do not pass this continuing resolution--the House of 
Representatives rejected a motion to recommit last night by a vote of 
222-193. Now, there is an additional factor beyond what we have debated 
so far. That is, at least according to the information provided to me, 
there is not a quorum in the House to act on what the Senate will do.
  I do not like the posture that we are in. The practical fact of life 
is that if we add this amendment, there will be a disagreement, no 
continuing resolution, and the funding which now goes to the schools in 
your State, Senator Simon, including Chicago, on education, schools in 
my State, schools across the country, will not have any additional 
funding.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. Briefly. On Senator Kennedy's time?
  Mr. SIMON. If you could on your time, I would appreciate it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield half a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there are really three alternatives. If my 
colleague is correct about not having a quorum, they can accept it by 
voice vote. That is not unprecedented. No. 2, it could come back here 
and we could decide in desperation we can take this off. And No. 3, we 
can decide we are going to have a continuing resolution by voice vote 
for another 5 days while we get this worked out.
  We do not need to supinely say, whatever the House decides we are 
going to have to do. I have never known the Senate to do that on any 
consistent basis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree with the Senator from Illinois that we ought not 
to simply accept anything, what the House says or anyone else says. I 
compliment him on his imaginative three alternatives, but none is going 
to come to pass. I yield the time.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator from 
Massachusetts yield the Senator from Rhode Island?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield him 3 minutes, and I will just yield myself 15 
seconds.
  Mr. President, just for others who are interested, the Senator from 
Illinois has stated it correctly. We could extend the continuing 
resolution that expires tonight into next week. The House is meeting 
next week and they expect a vote. We could extend it for 96 hours. That 
would bring it into Tuesday, and the House of Representatives could 
vote.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Notwithstanding the suggestion by the Senator from 
Massachusetts, you cannot do that unless the House of Representatives 
agrees to it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has been yielded 
3 minutes.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I know I speak for many of my constituents 
when I say that the continuing resolution before us is a welcome 
breakthrough in the protracted deadlock that has stalled our National 
Government for the past 2 months.
  But as welcome as that breakthrough is, I would be remiss if I did 
not state my disagreement--in the strongest terms--with the provisions 
of the resolution dealing with education. And I join in wholehearted 
support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy].
  In doing so, I recognize that the pending resolution is a product of 
considerable compromise across partisan and ideological lines and that 
no one among us is completely satisfied with its terms.
  But the Federal commitment to education, to my mind, should be the 
very last area of concession. As I have said before, we should treat 
education as a vital capital investment of the Nation's future. It is 
an investment which is closely tied to our objective of deficit 
reduction because a well-educated citizenry is essential to preserving 
a strong and vibrant economy.
  The continuing resolution before us would finance programs of the 
Department of Education at 75 percent of fiscal year 1995 levels, which 
I view as an unduly and unwisely low level of funding. If extended over 
the fiscal year it would cut education funding by $3.1 billion and 
adversely impact many programs of proven merit.
  I am particularly concerned about the impact of a 25-percent cut in 
title I spending, which provides compensatory education for 
disadvantaged children. I am told that the result could be reduced 
services for 1.1 million children and the layoff of some 90,000 support 
personnel.
  And the damage would go beyond that. Goals 2000, Safe and Drug Free 
Schools, vocational education, adult education, Perkins loans, and 
other programs would suffer from loss of a quarter of their funding. In 
Rhode Island, the loss to the six programs affected by the cuts would 
amount to $5.6 million, of which $3.5 million would be taken from title 
I funding.
  And as the Senator from Massachusetts has reminded us so cogently, 
with every passing week without a correction of these adverse impacts, 
school districts across the country and educational institutions at all 
levels are facing a dilemma in planning their commitments for the 
coming year.
  The effect of the CR on education therefore is another step in the 
drastic defunding of Federal education programs. There is still room to 
hope that the direction of this unwise course of action can still 
somehow be changed before the expiration of the pending resolution on 
March 15. Far better that we do so now if we can. So I support the 
Kennedy amendment and hope that we can remedy the faulty provisions of 
the resolution before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts 
for his leadership on this issue. I strongly support the amendment he 
has offered because it would put back into some kind of reasonable 
balance the priorities that we should be pursuing here in this 
Congress.
  In a few hours we are going to vote on a defense authorization bill. 
In that bill the Congress has decided to add $7 billion to what the 
Pentagon requested in funding for this year. At the same time we are 
voting $7 billion extra for defense, we are, in our appropriations 
process, proposing to cut $3.1 billion from what goes to education.
  Those priorities are out of whack, in my opinion. They are out of 
line with the priorities of the American people, and this amendment 
would help correct that. I strongly support it. 

[[Page S408]]

  I would like to mention one other area, the issue of educational 
technology. The President spoke the other night about the importance of 
bringing all of our students up in educational technology and making 
them all technologically literate as they go into the next century. He 
said each of our classrooms should be hooked up to the Internet by the 
year 2000. The truth is, the President asked for $50 million to begin 
this process. On the House side the proposal is to cut that in half. On 
the Senate side the proposal is to cut it by two-thirds. The bill which 
we are now considering, this continuing resolution, cuts it by even 
more. Our priorities are not what they should be.
  Let me also say something about the procedure we are following here. 
This is the ninth continuing resolution since the beginning of this 
fiscal year. In addition to that, we have in this continuing resolution 
a statement that the act should be cited as the Balanced Budget 
Downpayment Act, No. 1. Essentially, what we are saying here is that 
not only have we had nine continuing resolutions so far, but that this 
is the first of a series of additional continuing resolutions.
  Our States cannot plan. They do not know what their funding is going 
to be from the Federal Government. Our school districts cannot plan. 
Our teachers, our parents, our students cannot plan. This is an 
irresponsible way for us to be conducting our business. People deserve 
better from the U.S. Congress than they are getting with this process. 
A great nation like this should deal with its children in a more 
responsible way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico 
said that the House reduced the President's request on education 
technology by half and the Senate reduced it by two-thirds. I offer the 
statistics made available to me by staff and ask unanimous consent they 
be printed in the Record, the full sheet.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, FISCAL YEAR 1996--CONTINUING RESOLUTION                                             
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]                                                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              1996                    1996     75 percent of            
              Office, account, program and activity                  D/M     1995 revised    amended   1996 House    Senate         1995       CR annual
                                                                            appropriation    request     action      action    appropriation     level  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              ..........
      Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OER I]                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Education research, statistics, and improvement:                                                                                                        
    1. Research (ERDDIA).........................................       D         86,200       97,600     101,578      90,000        64,650       86,200
    2. Statistics (NESA).........................................       D         48,153       57,000      48,153      44,301        36,115       48,153
    3. Assessment:                                                                                                                                      
        (a) National assessment (NESA section 411)...............       D         29,757       34,500      29,757      29,757        22,318       29,757
        (b) National Assessment Governing Board (NESA sec. 412)..       D       \1\2,995        3,500       3,000       2,760         2,246        2,995
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............................................                 32,752       38,000      32,757      32,517        24,564       32,752
    4. Eisenhower professional development national activities                                                                                          
     (ESEA II-A and C)...........................................       D         21,356       35,000           0      18,000        16,017       16,017
    5. Educational technology (ESEA III):                                                                                                               
        (a) Technology for education (Part A):                                                                                                          
            (1) K-12 technology learning challenge (section 3136)       D          9,500       50,000      25,000      15,000         7,125        9,500
            (2) Adult technology learning challenge (section                                                                                            
             3136)...............................................       D              0       20,000           0           0             0            0
            (3) National activities (sections 3122 and 3141).....       D         13,000       13,000           0      10,000         9,750        9,750
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal...........................................                 22,500       83,000      25,000      25,000        16,875       19,250
        (b) Star schools (Part B)................................       D         25,000       30,000           0      25,000        18,750       18,750
        (c) Ready to learn television (Part C)...................       D          7,000        7,000           0       6,440         5,250        5,250
        (d) Telecommunications demonstration project for                                                                                                
         mathematics (Part D)....................................       D          1,125        2,250           0       1,035           844          844
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............................................       D         55,625      122,250      25,000      57,475        41,719       44,094
    6. Fund for the Improvement of Education (ESEA X-A)..........       D         36,750       36,750      36,750      36,497        27,563       36,750
    7. Javits gifted and talented education (ESEA X-B)...........       D          4,921        9,521       3,000       3,000         3,691        3,691
    8. National Diffusion Network (ESEA XIII-B)..................       D         11,780       14,480           0      10,000         8,835        8,835
    9. Eisenhower regional mathematics and science education                                                                                            
     consortia (ESEA XIII-C).....................................       D         15,000       15,000           0      15,000        11,250       11,250
    10. 21st century community learning centers (ESEA X-I).......       D            750            0           0         750           563            0
    11. National writing project (ESEA X-K)......................       D          3,212            0           0       2,955         2,409            0
    12. Civic education (ESEA section 10601).....................       D          4,463        4,463        3,00       4,106         3,347        3,347
    13. International education exchange (Goals 2000 EAA title                                                                                          
     VI).........................................................       D          3,000        3,000           0       6,000         2,250        2,250
    14. Extended time and learning (ESEA X-L)....................       D              0            0           0       2,000             0            0
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total......................................................                323,962      433,064     250,238     322,601       242,972      293,339
                                                                           =============================================================================
Outlays..........................................................       D        326,816      340,340     295,043           0             0            0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects a reduction of $5 thousand for this account's share of a $1,525 thousand rescission in fiscal year 1995 administrative and travel funds.   

  Mr. SPECTER. The President had a request for $122 million. Last 
year's funding was $55,625,000. The subcommittee recommended a figure 
of fiscal year 1996 of $57,475,000. So we did not cut the President's 
request by two-thirds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I just respond to that and respond 
to the Senator from Pennsylvania?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield time for that response?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The figures I was given were that in the Improving 
America's Schools Act, which we adopted in the last Congress, we 
adopted the technology for education provisions. The President 
requested $50 million for K-12 funding for educational technology 
there.
  The House has cut that request from $50 to $25 million. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee cuts it down to $15 million. The bill we are 
considering here would result in even less funding for educational 
technology.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the matter which the Senator from New 
Mexico refers to involves the K-12 technology learning challenge, where 
the request was in at $50 million and the House was at $25 million and 
the Senate was at $15 million. But the overall education technology, 
ESEA, title III, are on the figures I cited where we are funding in 
excess of last year, more than twice the funding recommended by the 
House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has been yielded 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  I feel a little uncomfortable out here in debate with the Senator 
from Pennsylvania because I think he cares fiercely about these 
programs, and I certainly do not think he represents the full 
priorities of some of those in the House who have sort of been the 
impetus for these programs. But let me just say, processwise, I view 
this as slash and burn on the installment plan. I think that is really 
what is going on here, and I think it is a backdoor way of making some 
fairly deep cuts in educational programs. I do not think that reflects 
the priorities of the people in the country. 

[[Page S409]]

  Altogether, on present course, this continuing resolution for the 
whole fiscal year would cut education by $3.1 billion. The Senator from 
Massachusetts mentioned this earlier, but I think it is worth 
repeating. Title I reading and math programs are cut by $1.1 billion, 
meaning that over 1 million children will lose services and 31,500 
teachers could be laid off.
  The first argument we made was that, really, we cannot restore this 
funding for education and children because, if we do it, then that 
would mean less for low-income energy assistance or that would mean 
less for other very important programs. But that is not the tradeoff. 
We do not have to do the $245 billion of tax cuts. We do not have to 
have $7 billion in the Defense bill over what the Pentagon wanted. We 
do not have to go forward with B-2 bombers to the tune of $2 billion 
each. That is not the real national security of this country. The real 
national security is when we invest in the health and skills and 
intellect and character of our children.
  Mr. President, then the second argument, all of a sudden, as we were 
going through this debate, was a different one than I heard, which was 
OK. But the problem is that if this should pass, then the House will 
not accept it and we would have a Government shutdown.
  What that means to me, as I hear this argument, is that the House of 
Representatives, because, in fact, we decided to invest $3 billion more 
on the projected, year-wise, because we decided over this next critical 
period of time to invest more money in safe and drug-free schools, in 
support for children with special needs, in making sure that higher 
education was accessible for our young and not so young students--many 
of our students in higher education have gone back to school. Men and 
women, some having lost their jobs, are going back for additional 
education so they can be independent. What I am hearing is that, if we 
should restore funding for this investment in people in our country, 
the House of Representatives would find that so unconscionable that 
they would then shut the Government down. I mean, what kind of 
priorities are we talking about here in this Congress? Certainly it is 
not the priorities of people in this country.
  Mr. President, I am also concerned just thinking about my own State. 
I will not even talk about this numberwise. I will talk about it 
peoplewise. I am hearing from higher education people, from some of our 
colleges and universities, and they do not really know what the 
situation is with low-interest loans or Pell grant programs. Students 
need that assistance.
  By the way, Mr. President, I will tell you that in the State of 
Minnesota, many undergraduates are now taking 6 years because they are 
working two and three minimum-wage jobs. I mean, students sell plasma 
at the beginning of the semester in order to buy textbooks. These are 
students who need this financial assistance. They do not know what the 
situation is.
  Mr. President, school boards do not know what the situation is. They 
are trying to figure out what is going to happen with this title I 
money. These are kids with special needs, kids with special problems. 
Are we going to walk away from them? Are we going to provide fewer 
services? Is it going to be made up through higher property taxes? 
Nobody knows.
  I hear people from our school boards, whether they are Democrats or 
Republicans or Independents alike, saying to me, ``Senator, what in the 
world is going on? This is the last place we should be making these 
cuts.''
  Mr. President, I mean, from Head Start, which is not a part of this 
amendment--but we now have proposed reductions in Head Start programs, 
which is nothing more than an effort to give some children who need a 
head start a head start all the way to higher education, all the way to 
kids with special needs and vocational education and safe and drug-free 
schools. These are distorted priorities. So today we are taking on 
those distorted priorities. We are not going to let this be slash and 
burn on the installment plan. We are not going to let this be a back-
door disinvestment in education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I inquire of the distinguished Senator 
from Minnesota. The question is about what happens on the current state 
of the allocations. Again, with much of what he has had to say, I do 
not disagree in terms of priorities. But if you do not increase the 
allocation to the subcommittee which I chair, which has jurisdiction 
over Health and Human Services, which has funding for LIHEAP as well as 
education--what happens to the other programs.
  I ask this of the Senator from Minnesota because he spoke extensively 
and eloquently on this subject. Unless we increase the allocation, 
which I would like to do, is it not true that we are going to lose $105 
million in funding for LIHEAP?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the answer is, if we do not increase 
the allocation--and we must increase the allocation. I do not accept 
these priorities.
  What I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania is doing is putting 
some of us in the position of having to argue for a zero-sum-game 
situation. We do not believe that there should be these tax cuts to the 
tune of $245 billion. We do not believe in some of these other 
priorities. We believe some tax cut--some of which goes to people who 
do not need it--you should have enough revenue to make sure people do 
not go cold in Pennsylvania, or Minnesota, or Massachusetts, and, in 
addition, we do not make cuts in educational opportunities for 
children. You are presenting a false choice for the Senator from 
Minnesota and, for that matter, for the people of the country.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Minnesota, because 
he talks about the tax cuts, does the Senator from Minnesota agree with 
President Clinton to cut the tax by $130 billion?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No, I do not, Mr. President.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when the Senator from Minnesota talks 
about choices and says that I am putting him in that position, this 
amendment puts the whole subcommittee in that position because if it 
passes and there is no increased allocation, the fact of life is that 
everything in the whole bill with the exception of the Department of 
Education, Headstart, and school-to-work programs would be cut by 10\1/
2\ percent.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on this point, just before the Senator 
from Washington speaks, I would like to yield a minute to the Senator 
from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
aware of this, but we have not passed the appropriations bill out of 
the Senate yet in this area. So there is nothing in concrete yet. The 
Congress has not passed an appropriations bill for education. So there 
is nothing locked in concrete at this particular time.
  So there is certainly not only time but obviously the ability to 
modify the figures and not to have to cut back on these other programs. 
It will take some doing. But you still have to negotiate with the 
House. Changes can be made in the whole process on these things right 
now.
  It is not the fault of the Senator from Pennsylvania that the Senate 
has not acted on this, and we have a problem that everybody knows about 
in this area. But there is nothing locked in concrete at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reluctant as I am to disagree with my 
distinguished colleague from Vermont, the Senate is locked into the 
allocation. We are locked into the allocation which has been given to 
the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over these three Departments.
  If the amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts passes, there is 
only so much air in the balloon. If you take it out of one section, we 
are going to lose by 10\1/2\ percent over everything else unless the 
allocation is increased.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 16 minutes remaining. 
  
[[Page S410]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership on this critical 
issue of making sure that our children across this country have 
adequate funding for the education they so desperately need for the 
world they are being handed.
  Recently a poll showed that 92 percent of the American public say 
that we should fund education at either the same or increased levels 
for Federal education. Why this continuing resolution speaks only about 
8 percent of the population makes no sense to me.
  But before I address that, let me also express my frustration and my 
increasing anger at this Congress and the way it is governing this 
country today by passing continuing resolutions for 30 days, 25 days, 
45 days, and on and on. What we are doing to this country is wrong. We 
have the responsibility to govern in a way that gives security to 
everyone that we represent and give the ability to people out there 
across this country who serve our constituents' needs the security they 
have to put in place their ability to make sure that their programs 
work effectively. And we are really undermining that effort today.
  I speak to you as a former school board member who knows well what 
the impacts of these 35- and 45-day continuing resolutions are and this 
$3.1 billion reduction in funding. What it means to those poor school 
board members is that in a few short weeks, they are going to be facing 
angry parents across this country telling them that their class size 
will be reduced, that they will have to let teachers go, that textbooks 
will not be available, that security guards will not be in their 
schools next year because they simply do not know what this Government 
is going to do for them in the coming year. That is not right.
  Every Member should know that the real answer here is, we are asked 
to pass a budget. The numbers are on the table. There are budgets that 
balance the budget by the year 2002. That is what we should be doing 
instead of these continuing resolutions.
  Mr. President, as we do this, every one of us is going to have to go 
home and face our constituents. I assure all of my colleagues they will 
meet a young woman like I met just a few short weeks ago in a grocery 
store who looked at me and told me she is trying to go to college next 
year, and the only way she will be able to go is if she has a student 
loan or a grant or gets Federal help. Yet the college she is applying 
to told her they cannot tell her what is going to happen because they 
do not know what we are going to do.
  That is not fair to that young girl, it is not fair to her family, 
and it is certainly not right for the future of this country.
  Mr. President, my colleagues have done a good job of outlining how 
important this education amendment is, but let me make it even more 
clear for you. For the State of Washington, we will lose $24 million. 
That is about $24 or $25 per student in my State. That translates to a 
textbook. That translates to a few less hours with a teacher. That 
translates to actually losing real dollars for every one of our kids. 
Yes, it speaks to specific programs but school boards are going to have 
to go back into their budgets and transfer dollars around in order to 
make up the funding that we are taking away. And every single one of 
our children in this country is going to lose.
  It seems crazy to me that we are going to sacrifice our children and 
America's future for the sake of political ego. We have the good 
fortune in this country of changing political leadership every few 
years in our democracy, but we do not have the fortune of reversing an 
uneducated and unprepared generation. For our kids, for our future, for 
this country's ability to compete in the worldwide technological 
society that we have today, let us support this resolution. Let us send 
a message to our kids that we do care about them, we understand their 
needs, and we are not going to neglect them in this Nation's Capital.
  Just last week, headlines across America rang out. Education is our 
top priority. Polls throughout our Nation strongly show that Americans 
support an investment in education; 92 percent would like the same or 
increased levels of Federal funding for education.
  Apparently some of my colleagues are listening to that 8 percent of 
our population. They are forcing upon the American people a continuing 
resolution that would cut $3.1 billion from education through this 
year. This would be coupled with the $600 million in rescissions in 
education already enacted for fiscal year 1995.
  This would represent the largest setback to education in the history 
of the United States. Why? It is very easy to target a group that has 
no vote, no political action committee, no lobbying dollars to create a 
political voice--our children. These are the same kids who are already 
giving up. They are faced with overcrowded classrooms, outdated 
textbooks, and frustrated teachers. They lack purpose knowing they 
cannot afford or gain entrance to an institution of higher education 
and wonder if the skills they learn today will ever lead to a job 
tomorrow.
  Certainly, throwing money at a problem is not the answer. But 
eliminating programs that have been proven to provide long-term 
educational skills and enhance school-to-work training are essential to 
our society. Last week in hearings before a joint House-Senate 
committee, we heard from Dr. Milton Goldberg who emphasized that the 
need for skilled labor from the business community has never been 
greater. NYNEX recently interviewed 60,000 applicants to fill 3,000 
jobs and Motorola found less than 10 percent of job applicants are 
qualified for their entry level jobs.
  Yet, the existing continuing resolution would deny millions of 
America's children and young adults valuable educational opportunities. 
Already, a third of the fiscal year has elapsed with no funding levels 
for education and school districts are facing an 18-percent increase in 
enrollments over the next decade.
  These cuts would deny 1.1 million students crucial help in reading, 
writing, math, and advanced reasoning; 100,000 would lose English 
assistance and hundreds of thousands more would be denied vocational 
training; 14,000 school districts would have to cut back their safe and 
drug-free school programs and many would jeopardize their disabled 
education programs.
  We will continue to debate the role of our Federal Government in the 
education process. Michael DiRaimo of the Pittsburgh public schools 
told us last week, however, that though Federal funds account for a 
small portion of the district's budget, the services provided with 
those funds are vital to the district's ability to serve needy and at-
risk children.
  My own State of Washington will lose over $24 million for education 
under this continuing resolution. Washington State has been a national 
leader in the school-to-work field and will lose $3 million in 
vocational education dollars because we are unable to reach agreement 
on the budget. Additionally, the State will lose $16 million in title I 
funds that greatly aid our classrooms in basic educational skills.
  At the very least, we cannot cut education programs beyond fiscal 
year 1995 levels. Let us not sacrifice our children and America's 
future for the sake of political ego. We have the fortune of changing 
political leadership every few years in this democracy. We do not have 
the fortune of reversing an uneducated and unprepared generation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has been 
yielded 3 minutes. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate and thank my 
senior colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership and for his 
effort, a very important effort to bring before the Senate the real 
choices that are facing our country.
  I listened to my friend from Pennsylvania and while, indeed, we must 
contend with some so-called caps, funding levels that have been 
allocated among the Appropriations subcommittees, et cetera, everybody 
here knows that we are engaged in tough bargaining right now and that 
none of those 

[[Page S411]]
caps is set in concrete--because if we were to resolve this budget 
crisis, we could make any number of changes in the budget. We could 
decide that we were going to find some more revenue and use it to fund 
services critical to our nation's future. We could remove the firewall 
that protects funding for the Defense Department and take some of the 
$7 billion that the Congress added to the budget request of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and instead put it into education or another priority 
of the American people.
  So let us not fool the American people. These choices are in our 
hands. We are not helpless here. We are not powerless. If we believe 
something is sufficiently important to this Nation's people and future, 
we can make it happen. Everybody understands that what we are doing now 
is drawing dramatic lines between one group's set of priorities and 
others' priorities.
  I do not understand how my colleagues in the Senate can ignore every 
single analysis from the best educators in our country, the best 
scientists in our country, the best child psychologists in our country, 
the best criminologists in our country, all of whom say that we have to 
find a way to impart to our children the high skills they need to 
compete for jobs here, and to permit our industries to compete 
globally. This is absolutely essential if we are to create and fill 
high value-added jobs that will raise the incomes of the American 
people. Analysts agree that last year, if you were a graduate degree 
holder in America, you lost income by 1 percent. If you were a high 
school graduate, you lost income by about 15 percent. And if you were a 
high school dropout, you lost income by about 27 percent.
  Each of those categories, in addition to experiencing significantly 
different income change, experiences significantly different health 
care coverage--as a reliable rule, the workers with the lowest 
educational levels have the least health care coverage. In this way, 
the success of our educational system has a profound social effect that 
extends well beyond the job market and personal finances. Failure of 
our educational system contributes directly to our nation's health care 
crisis.
  Those are the choices, and here we are in the Congress being told we 
have to accept a continuing resolution that accepts and perpetuates a 
continuing process of diminishing all of these opportunities for our 
citizens.
  It is fundamental; Pell grants cut by 40 percent in the budget. Why? 
Why do we want to make it harder for people to get the higher education 
that is the gateway to good jobs? Why is it that we are going to reduce 
the capacity of our kids in the most hard hit, economically depressed 
areas of our country where there is the least property tax base from 
which to draw in order to support the school system? Why would we want 
less Federal assistance that is provided in an effort to minimize that 
inequity according to a national standard, and thereby attempt to make 
real the commitment of equal opportunity?
  The Federal Government does not run the schools. We do not tell them 
what they have to do. We do not intrude on local control. We are simply 
holding out this enormous carrot and saying: Look, if you will raise 
your standards, if you will teach better, if you will make these 
improvements, we will offer to pay some of the costs in order to help 
you put your kids in a higher education status.
  Eliminating this assistance and the incentives it provides is just 
incomprehensible. We must face this directly, and add these funds for 
education programs--recognizing the fact we then must come back and 
adjust budget allocations in order to prevent other vital services from 
being inadvertently reduced as a result.
  Funding for badly-needed services offered by the Departments of Labor 
and Health and Human Services must not be further reduced as a result 
of this amendment. Indeed, there is a crying need to increase funding 
for a number of these other key services as well.
  The amendment before us will increase Federal spending through the 
expiration date of this resolution--March 15--for a handful of 
education programs, in order to enable schools and colleges to plan for 
the year ahead and not find themselves forced to cancel vital services 
and programs for their students. This is something we must do. But 
before this resolution expires, we must act to restore the amount of 
this amendment that technically will be deducted from other services 
funded by the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill--for example, to 
ensure sufficient resources for training adult workers, retraining 
dislocated workers, and assuring summer jobs for at least 600,000 
economically disadvantaged young people who otherwise will be tempted 
to spend their summertime in pursuits that may jeopardize their lives 
or their futures as well as the health and safety of other Americans. 
The House-passed appropriations bill will deprive Boston alone of $2.3 
million for summer youth jobs, and will deprive all of Massachusetts of 
nearly 11,000 summer jobs.
  We also must restore funds for helping dislocated workers which are 
slashed by 30 percent in the House Republicans' appropriations bill. 
This program is extremely important in Massachusetts in helping laid-
off workers--most recently, 448 workers from Raytheon Corporation and 
2,400 workers who lost their jobs as a result of the tragic Christmas 
fire in Methuen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. I urge my colleagues to vote with the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts to provide this minimal but vital increase in funds for 
education.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when the Senator from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, denigrates my arguments, I have to respond. When he 
says, ``Let us not fool the American people,'' I would suggest that his 
arguments and this amendment do precisely that, and the reason they do 
it is because this amendment proposes to reinstate funding to the 1995 
level, makes that representation, but in fact it does not do it. It 
does not do it because it lasts for only 49 days, and because almost 
all of the expenditures in an appropriations process do not take effect 
until July 1.
  When you talk about the expectations of the educators as to what they 
are going to do and representations made about how many teachers will 
be laid off, they are not going to derive any solace from this 
amendment. What this amendment really is, is a grand show to say that 
there are many people who are arguing for it who think education ought 
to have a higher funding level. That is something that I agree with. 
And that when the Senate was allocated $1.6 billion more with my 
leadership and the leadership of Senator Harkin, that was all put into 
education.
  To personalize it for just a minute, I have expressed repeatedly, on 
this floor and off, my support for education. And on the personal 
level, neither of my parents had any education to speak of. My father 
came to this country as an immigrant, had no formal education. My 
mother came at the age of 5, went to the eighth grade, and my brother 
and my two sisters and I have been able to share in the American dream 
because of our educational opportunities.
  I do not take second place to either Senator from Massachusetts on my 
devotion to educational funding or to anybody else who has argued in 
favor of it. If they seek to gain momentum, I think they are 
counterproductive here. They are going to lose votes on this amendment. 
If you want to say how many Senators support an increase in funding for 
education, you are not going to be able to tell it when this vote is 
taken. I know the distinguished Senator from Oregon, the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, is going to vote against it. He has told 
me so. I am going to vote against it because of what it does, if it 
stands, it is going to take tremendous sums of money from many, many 
other programs which everybody who has spoken in favor of the amendment 
would hate to see happen. This is an exercise in futility and an 
exercise in counterproductivity. So that when you say, ``Let us not 
fool the American people,'' let us identify who is trying to fool the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut. 

[[Page S412]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is yielded how 
much time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Four minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator very much.
  Let me begin by thanking our colleague from Massachusetts as well as 
my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and our colleague from Vermont, 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Simon of Illinois, and others, who have been 
the prime movers of this amendment. I commend them for it.
  My colleague from Pennsylvania suggests this amendment is meaningless 
and that everybody is for increases in education. Well, if that is the 
case, this amendment ought to be adopted by voice vote. But instead 
what we are doing here with this CR is nibbling and nibbling away at 
education. So in 49 days when we come back to another continuing 
resolution this becomes the floor for the next continuing resolution.
  We have viewed continuing resolutions as a procedure used to delay 
any final action until a broader solution could be reached on spending 
matters. That is how they have been used historically.
  This year we are seeing a whole new use of the continuing resolution. 
It is now becoming a vehicle by which we make policy decisions on a 
piecemeal basis. Even though there is broad agreement at the leadership 
level of each of our parties to protect education from cuts, these 
continuing resolutions are cutting education. That is what this effort 
is, despite the fact that 75 to 80 percent of the American public have 
told us from one end of this country to the other, we want you to 
balance this budget, we want you to do it in 7 years; and, we also hope 
you understand that we need to grow in this country.
  Our economic growth levels are too low. If we are going to grow as a 
Nation in the next 7 to 10 years, one of the critical ingredients is 
going to be education. My colleague from Pennsylvania talks about the 
status of his parents and the difficulty as immigrants coming to this 
country. His story is an ennobling one, and one that could be told by 
millions of American families.
  The problem in the fall of 1996 is that opportunity will be limited 
for millions of American students. In higher education, where an awful 
lot of institutions now have tuitions of $20,000 a year and more, 
financial aid is more important than ever. Even public institutions 
cost thousands of dollars. And yet, institutions are telling us, ``We 
cannot plan. We cannot process applications for student aid or student 
loans because you in Washington can't get your act together. We don't 
know what you are going to do on Pell grants or work study. We don't 
know what you are going to do on student loans.'' And each of these 
institutions represents hundreds or thousands of students who do not 
know how they are going to pay for college next year, because of our 
delay.
  I mention higher education. It is also true at the elementary and 
secondary level. School boards all across America are looking to this 
debate today and saying, ``What message are you sending us? How do we 
plan for the next school year? What do we tell our teachers, aides and 
workers on contract? What do we do to our local tax base?''
  We should not be going through this process here. It is one thing to 
hold Federal workers hostage to our inaction. Now we are holding 
middle-class, working families and their children hostage because we 
cannot get our work done. This is an abuse of our privilege here.
  We want to send a different message today with this amendment. 
Instead of cuts, we should be talking in terms of restoring education 
funding levels to at least the 1995 levels. We do have to deal with the 
larger budget question for the next 7 years and education must be a 
part of this. But cutting education for the next 49-days sends all the 
wrong signals on certainty of funding.
  Washington has got to grow up. We have to learn how to get our 
business done. Education is no area in which to play games. It is too 
critically important for the well-being of this Nation and for families 
who are planning for the education of their children.
  So, Mr. President, I sincerely hope that on this one issue, despite 
what other differences we have in other areas--because my colleague 
from Pennsylvania has said over and over again it is not in debate 
whether or not we ought to be doing in education--let us send the other 
body the signal this afternoon that we agree with our colleague from 
Pennsylvania and that we are going to take education off the table 
here, not for these 49 days, but also down the road. We can send that 
message by voting for the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. On the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other side has 20 minutes 41 seconds 
remaining.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Generally, Mr. President, the proponents of amendments 
get a chance to make the final comment. I do not know what the desire 
of the opponents would be. I would yield myself, Mr. President, 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, sometime around Thanksgiving, when there 
were negotiations about continuing resolutions, the Republican 
leadership and the President of the United States agreed to work out a 
process that would put the budget in balance over 7 years using CBO 
numbers but also protect education. It included the environment, 
Medicare, and Medicaid, and protected education. That was agreed to. 
That was after the assignment of these numbers that are constantly 
referred to here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  One has to ask, as we are considering this amendment, how in the 
world are we going to protect education, which Republicans and 
Democrats and the President agreed to, if we are going to cut the funds 
that were implemented just last year? The school population is 
expanding by 10 percent, rising to over 50 million students. We need 
new technologies and computers in the schools. We are asking our 
schools in this country to do more and more as they are faced with 
different kinds of challenges, whether it is violence, substance abuse, 
immigration, use of many languages, or other kinds of challenges, how 
can we cut education now?
  All we are saying with this amendment is let us fulfill the promise 
that was given by Republican and Democratic leaders at that time when 
they agreed to a balanced budget in 7 years, CBO numbers, but protect 
education.
  Mr. President, as these negotiations continue, with the clear 
admonition by Republicans and the President of the United States to say 
we are going to protect education, we believe that the only way you are 
going to protect it is at least use the same kind of commitment to 
education programs that were used in 1995. Do not increase it to take 
into consideration the expansion of the school population, do not 
increase it to meet the additional kind of challenges in technology, do 
not increase it to try to raise additional academic standards, which 
are the possibilities, but just keep it to 1995 levels.
  Mr. President, the logic of the other side that we have to continue 
along with a continuing resolution that is going to result in a 
diminution of those funds by some $3.1 billion defies all logic and all 
understanding. I hope the Senate will accept this amendment. I reserve 
the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania controls 20 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to use some of my leader time to make a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader has that right.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts for his eloquent remarks and his leadership on this 
issue. This issue obviously is one of great importance to all of us, 
but it is not the 

[[Page S413]]
only problem that is created as a result of this continuing resolution. 
The problem is not just education; the problem is funding for the 
environment, the problem is in funding for housing, for parks, for 
reservations, for veterans hospitals. This situation is getting worse 
and worse because we have not been able to pass the appropriations 
bills that directly address the many funding issues that this 
continuing resolution does in a very inefficient and unsatisfactory 
way.
  The 75 percent funding level represents the largest cut in education 
in history, Mr. President. Others stated that, but it bears repeating. 
We are cutting $3.1 billion out of education this year. There is no 
other time and no other situation that we have ever cut education that 
deeply. That is what this continuing resolution represents.
  It means cuts in reading and math programs for the disadvantaged 
students in title I. It means deep cuts in technology. It means cuts in 
our efforts to bring about meaningful school reform and the Goals 2000 
and national education goals that are really a bipartisan effort that 
we called for all the way back in 1989. It means deep cuts in teacher 
development and training. It means cuts--in some cases elimination--of 
safe and drug-free schools.
  That 25 percent cut in title I, just that alone, means over 1 million 
people will be deprived of help in reading and math. It means 31,500 of 
their teachers will be given pink slips in the near future. Cities 
across this country are going to be very hard-hit. In Detroit that 25 
percent reduction means a loss of $16.8 million in their budget this 
year alone. Ten thousand fewer children will be served; 419 teachers 
will be laid off.
  The chairman of the Democratic mayors in this country was kind enough 
to come to the Hill this morning with a very simple question. His 
question was: Which 25 percent of my students in Detroit should I not 
educate? Which 25 percent do we tell they can no longer come? Which 25 
percent are the ones who are going to be detrimentally affected simply 
because we have not resolved this problem?
  In Dallas, Mr. President, public schools must submit a budget by 
March 21. They expect an increase of 4,000 students next year, but do 
not yet even know if Federal funding will meet the demand they know 
they have.

  In Philadelphia, they could lose $14 million for math and reading 
programs. Many of our Republican colleagues say that their only agenda 
is to protect our children's future, but I ask, how do we protect our 
future, how do we protect their future, if we deprive children of the 
quality education they need to succeed in the future? Siphoning off 
money for education consigns America's children to a second-class 
future of reduced opportunities.
  Speaker Gingrich has often talked about the importance of bringing 
students and classrooms into the computer age, and I agree with that. 
But the GOP budget rejects that goal. The President's budget had 
requested $50 million for technology to do exactly what the Speaker 
suggests, but the House Appropriations Committee cut it in half, and 
the Senate proposed to cut that by two-thirds.
  The problem is not just funding. It is the uncertainty that we are 
creating in every single school district about the budget that they 
must endure and the extraordinary decisions that they are going to have 
to make if we have not resolved this matter in the near future.
  Schools have to submit budgets. They are doing that right now. But 
they do not know what their funding levels are going to be. The 
contractual obligations will force districts right now--as they 
consider the obligations they have and the ramifications of this 
funding--to send pink slips to teachers across the country.
  Trinity College just recently indicated that, because of problems 
with past continuing resolutions, they have been able to provide only 
estimates with regard to financial aid eligibility and that the 
uncertainty about funding and budgeting has complicated the application 
process tremendously. This situation has the potential to discourage 
qualified students from applying to college.
  The Federal Government provides only 7 percent of overall education 
funding, but those dollars can mean 100 percent of the resources for a 
young person who needs help.
  Mr. President, children learn by example. Let us set an example of 
responsibility, of foresight. Let us keep our commitment to America's 
education. Let us keep our commitment to America's children. Let us 
adopt this amendment this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from 
Oklahoma desire?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield me 4 minutes?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I compliment my friend and 
colleague from Pennsylvania for his leadership, and I just want to make 
a couple of general comments. I, for one, would like to see us pass the 
Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. We should have 
passed it by the end of September. We did not get it done. We should 
have passed it by the end of the year. We did not get it done.
  You might ask, Why didn't you pass an appropriations bill? Because we 
had something very unusual. As a matter of fact, I have been in the 
Senate now--this is my 16th year. I cannot remember a party holding up 
moving to considering an appropriations bill for months. That is 
unique. That is historic, and the reason is because the Democrats in 
Congress, in the Senate, did not want us to take up the Labor and 
Health and Human Services bill. We tried. We even had votes.
  On September 29, we had a vote on whether or not we would move to 
this bill, and they said, ``No, we don't want to move to the bill.'' 
They did not want to move to the bill because there is a provision in 
there dealing with striker replacement. Somebody said, ``Well, that 
wasn't a germane amendment to this bill.'' It certainly was. It said no 
money should be used to enforce the President's Executive order dealing 
with striker replacement.
  There is also money in the bill that says no money will be used to 
enforce the President's order dealing with the prevailing wage on 
helpers. That has been in there for a few years. I wanted it out. I 
might mention, the helper amendment I wanted out. I had an amendment 
against that a couple years ago and I lost. I was willing to accept 
defeat, and we went ahead and passed the appropriations bill.

  In this case, most people in this body favor keeping this language 
for striker replacement so that the President would not legislate by 
Executive order. Some of us feel strongly about that. Legislation 
should pass through Congress, not by Executive order. The President had 
a chance to pass the legislation a year or two ago, and he did not get 
it passed. Now he is trying to do it with Executive order. We are 
trying to protect the prerogatives of the Congress. Article I, section 
1: Congress shall pass all laws.
  Because we had that striker replacement provision in, the Democrats 
would not allow us to take up the bill. It has been several months. So 
when I hear my friend and colleague say we are so concerned that 
education school districts do not know what their budgets are, they 
should not be looking on this side of the aisle, because we wanted to 
pass this bill.
  I might mention as well, Mr. President, if we pass the Labor and 
Health and Human Services bill, we have $1.5 billion more in the Senate 
bill than the House. We would come up with higher education figures in 
the conference if we could get to conference. We cannot even get to 
conference with this bill because, unfortunately, Members on the 
Democratic side have not allowed us to take up the bill.
  They will allow us to take up the bill if we do it under unanimous 
consent and they win on all their issues. That is not the way we should 
legislate. There are about five fairly contentious issues dealt with in 
the Labor and Health and Human Services bill--about five. I am willing 
to let the majority vote on all of those and let us find out how the 
Senate votes--let the majority rule--and pass the appropriations bill 
and go to conference and work out the differences with the House and 
then send the bill to the President. If he vetoes it, then we will have 
to come back. Maybe we will still be under a 

[[Page S414]]
continuing resolution, but this is the only bill in the Senate this 
year we have not been able to pass. I think that is regrettable.
  The reason we have not been able to pass it, unfortunately, is 
because Members on the Democratic side of the aisle have not allowed us 
to proceed to the bill, and that needs to change.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleague for an additional minute.
  Mr. SPECTER. Agreed.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we did finally, under this bill, pass the 
foreign operations bill. That was one of the contentious bills. We 
finally have that resolved. We should pass the Department of the 
Interior bill. That was vetoed by the President. That shut down the 
parks; that shut down the museums. That is unfortunate. It should not 
have happened. But we have really an agreement on every contentious 
issue to pass the Department of the Interior bill.

  I compliment Senator Gorton for his leadership. We should send that 
to the President. He should sign that bill. There is no reason for that 
bill to still be caught up in some of this controversy.
  We still have Commerce, State, Justice, VA-HUD, Labor, and Health and 
Human Services. Labor and Health is the only one that has not passed 
the Senate, and it has not passed because our friends on the other side 
of the aisle have refused to let us proceed to it. We should proceed to 
it, vote on those amendments in disagreement and send it to the House, 
go to conference and finish our bill.
  I yield the floor and thank my colleague and compliment the Senator 
from Pennsylvania, because he has tried endlessly to bring this bill 
before the Senate and have it finally resolved.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The programs included in our amendment are not the only 
ones that deserve to be fairly funded. They are not the only programs 
that will experience damaging effects under the current CR. I am 
committed to addressing those other programs at the earliest 
opportunity.
  I am particularly concerned about programs in the Department of Labor 
that provide critical protection for the lives, and health and economic 
security of America's workers. The CR makes deep cuts in funding for 
the agencies that protect workers from being forced to work long hours 
of overtime without adequate compensation. Child labor inspectors will 
be laid off, and the sweatshop conditions the Labor Department has 
attacked in the garment industry this year will only worsen.
  The Department's pension protection initiatives will be seriously 
damaged by these cuts. One out of twelve employees in the pension 
agency could be laid off, leaving hundreds of troubled pension plans 
unaudited. The pension agency recovers $350 million a year as a result 
of its investigations. Thousands of employees will be hurt if plans 
that have cheated them go undetected because of these budget cuts. The 
Department's recent success in prosecuting abuse of 401(k) plans cannot 
be continued if these cuts are not rescinded.
  In addition, as a result of these cuts, OSHA will see its budget 
reduced by 16 percent by this bill. Already, we spend less than $3 per 
worker on workplace safety and enforcement. Dangerous workplaces can 
already go years without an inspection, because there are so few OSHA 
inspectors already. Thousands of workers will be jeopardized by these 
cuts, because hazards that would have been found and corrected go 
undetected. It is not just the inspectors who will be cut, but the 
consultants who work with employers to improve their safety, as well.
  We cannot fix everything that is wrong with this budget today. But I 
look forward to working with others in Congress to see that funding for 
these critical agencies that protect the lives and pocketbooks of 
American workers is restored.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of my colleagues' 
amendment to the continuing funding resolution regarding education 
funding.
  The Kennedy, Simon, Jeffords, Snowe amendment will provide that for 
the duration of this continuing resolution, funding for education 
programs will not go below the fiscal year 1995 appropriation.
  Education is a priority among the American people. In 1995, 75 
percent of Americans said that aid to education should be expanded--not 
cut. In poll after poll, the American people strongly oppose cuts to 
education programs and youth programs to balance the Federal budget.
  This continuing resolution funds education programs at the lower of 
the House or Senate levels, with no program being funded at less than 
75% of the fiscal year 1995 funding levels. With these funding levels, 
education cuts will exceed $3 billion in the current fiscal year.
  The Kennedy amendment would restore funding for education programs to 
the full fiscal year 1995 funding levels for the duration of the 
continuing funding resolution.
  Although the continuing funding resolution extends only through March 
15, it hits school districts and colleges in their peak planning and 
budgeting cycles for the next school years.
  If the funding levels in this continuing resolution continue 
throughout this fiscal year many educational programs will be affected.
  Title 1 reading and math programs will lose $1.1 billion, which means 
that over 1 million children will lose services and 31,500 teachers 
will have to be laid off this year.
  Goals 2000 will face a $93 million cut, which will jeopardize 
innovative projects for 8 million students in 9,000 school districts. 
In my State, that is over a $10 million loss in this fiscal year.
  Safe and Drug Free Schools will face a $115 million cut, which 
endangers violence and drug-abuse prevention programs in more than 
14,000 school districts. In my State that means over a $12 million 
dollar loss in this fiscal year.
  Political fights cannot and should not get in the way of important 
educational programs. I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy 
amendment and restore funding for education programs to its full fiscal 
year 1995 funding level, even if it is only for 45 days--45 days is 
better than none.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Senator Kennedy. This amendment would go a long way toward easing 
fears of educators and parents alike by locking in education at a 
strong level under this funding measure.
  Holding education funding hostage during the ongoing budget struggle 
is wrong. In the process of reaching a budget agreement we should not 
leave education programs underfunded and adrift in uncertainty.
  Absent a miraculous and quick resolution to those issues holding up 
the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations 
bill, we should approve funding for education consistent with last 
year's levels. The Kennedy amendment would do just that.
  Mr. President, shutting down the Government as a budget bargaining 
ploy was the height of fiscal irresponsibility. The piece-meal, short 
term budget measures are not much better. Although necessary to end or 
prevent further Government shutdowns, the temporary spending bills have 
meant severe reductions in education resources.
  Many critical education programs have been cut by 25 percent under 
the short term spending bills. As a result, school administrators and 
parents are left wondering whether the Congress really is committed to 
education.
  The American people know that improving our elementary and secondary 
schools, and increasing access to higher education are sound 
investments. Like money spent on our Nation's defense or a safe 
environment, resources directed toward educating young people is 
essential to our competitiveness and quality of life in the next 
century.
  We all profess to support our students and communities, but now is 
the time for action and not just words.
  As we demand that students stay in school, study harder, and act 
responsibly, we must fulfill our own responsibilities to children and 
their schools by passing a strong education budget.
  Communities in each of our States are waiting for us to pass annual 
legislation so that they can make decisions on what to fund and what 
must be sacrificed. Superintendents and school boards are trying to act 
responsibly and balance their own budgets for next year, yet their 
hands are tied until the Congress takes decisive action. 

[[Page S415]]

  This amendment would assure educators, parents and students that 
Congress is commited to improving education. Such an assurance is long 
overdue.
  I am pleased to support the Kennedy amendment and I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, education determines our future--the 
future of our children, our States, and our Nation. Without a good 
education, children in West Virginia cannot fulfill their potential. 
Our country must increase its commitment to education, not pare it 
back, in order to meet the fierce challenges of a highly competitive 
world and to ensure the long-term security of our citizens.
  While I recognize the need to enact this next continuing resolution 
to keep the Federal Government open, I am immensely sorry to see that 
the majority party still persists in cutting education and other 
programs that are so essential to the families of our States. The $3 
billion cut in education programs, implicit in the funding levels of 
this bill, is exactly what Americans fear.
  Obviously, the continuing resolution has to pass to avoid a much 
larger crisis. But this education amendment I am cosponsoring will 
establish a clear record that some of us believe education should be 
treated as the priority that it is for children and families, and some 
do not.
  Education is a priority for the people of West Virginia and our 
country. And it has been a priority for me throughout my career in 
public service.
  Because of other, noneducation issues, the full Senate has not had 
its opportunity to vote on education funding this Congress, and 
consequently this continuing resolution endorses the House-passed 
education cuts, up to 25 percent. This is too harsh, and it will 
devastate education funding in counties across my State, potentially 
causing lay-offs among title 1 teachers.
  When the House of Representatives passed its appropriations bill that 
cuts education programs so severely, I wrote to West Virginia school 
superintendents to ask what would happen in their counties if such cuts 
became law. According to the Nicholas County Superintendent:

       . . . a reduction of federal dollars would be hard to 
     overcome. The cuts in Title 1 would mean loss of services to 
     our students in critical programs that would reflect in lower 
     test scores. . .. The increasing cost of equipment and 
     supplies for Vocational Education especially in the area of 
     technology have doubled yearly. Our students desperately need 
     the equipment and supplies to gain the skill necessary for 
     productive and worthwhile lives after graduation. . .. Our 
     country cannot be put in the position of having a second rate 
     educational system as compared to other countries in the 
     world. If our students are not prepared both academically and 
     with the skills necessary to compete in a worldwide job 
     market, our country will fall behind and eventually 
     deteriorate.

  Other superintendents sent similar letters.
  I completely agree with William Grizzell, the Nicholas County 
Superintendent, and the other West Virginia educators who wrote to me. 
We must continue to invest in education for our children and I support 
the Kennedy amendment for them and for the students who need title 1, 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs, vocational education, and other 
effective education programs.
  Opponents of the Kennedy amendment claim that this amendment will 
hurt other programs within the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. 
They say that it will impose harsher cuts on the National Institute of 
Health and other meritorious programs. Such an argument is a smoke-
screen. This argument assumes that Congress and the President will 
ultimately accept the spending levels approved by the House of 
Representatives in August 1995. Since then, the President and 
congressional leaders have already acknowledged that funding should be 
increased in the key areas. We should not accept the argument of 
opponents and allow a short-term, 7 week spending bill dominate--and 
devastate--education funding for an entire year.
  We should not kid ourselves and pretend that we are ``helping our 
children in the future'' with a Federal budget that cripples education 
and program cuts that limit educational opportunities for children from 
Head Start through college. It is simply wrong. We should not accept 
such harsh cuts in education programs and risk our children's future. I 
am sorry to see the majority party pushing a continuing resolution that 
treats education and children so poorly. This is a big mistake, and I 
support this amendment to make it clear that some of us really stand by 
our words about the importance of educating every child to his and her 
potential.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to waive the 
budget act to increase funds for education. I certainly agree with the 
goal of the amendment. Federal programs such as Impact Aid and title I 
are important to South Dakota schools and students across the country. 
However, although this amendment looks favorable at first glance, 
further study reveals two significant problems.
  First, in order to pay for the amendment, other vital programs would 
be cut. The National Institutes of Health, elderly nutrition programs, 
Maternal and Child Health block grants, and job training programs would 
be reduced beyond the levels outlined in the continuing resolution. 
This amendment simply would rob Peter to pay Paul.
  Second, this amendment would risk another Government shutdown by 
sending the bill back to the House of Representatives. The previous 
continuing resolution expires at midnight tonight, and any delays in 
sending this bill to the White House could cause a shutdown. Good 
progress has been made in budget talks this week. We must continue to 
move forward to a balanced budget. We cannot afford to slide backward 
to gridlock.
  Let me emphasize, the funding levels for education are temporary, 
until March 15 of this year. I will continue working to ensure that 
vital education programs receive sufficient funds for the remainder of 
the fiscal year. In fact, the Senate should consider the Labor, HHS, 
and Education appropriations bill, I intend to offer an amendment to 
increase funding for the Impact Aid Program. I hope to offer this 
amendment in the near future.
  In the meantime, we must pursue the goal of a balanced budget without 
wavering. The greatest single threat to education and a bright future 
for younger generations is runaway Federal spending. If we do not act, 
young people will be saddled with a much greater burden--the burgeoning 
$4.8 trillion debt. Without balanced budgets, interest on the Federal 
debt will continue to skyrocket, eventually squeezing out funding for 
legitimate programs such as title I or school lunches. The most 
important step the Federal Government can take to improve the 
opportunities for young people is to control Federal spending and 
eliminate the deficit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
this end.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's side has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will be in a position to yield back 
time after a brief statement. The Senator from Massachusetts has 
claimed the prerogative of the last argument. I do not know that he is 
entitled to it, but I will let him have the last minute.
  The essence of this matter is that the Senator from Massachusetts has 
offered an amendment to restore funding in education to the 1995 level, 
and that is a proposition that I agree with on the merits. I chair the 
subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education. When the subcommittee 
received an allocation which was $1.534 billion more than the House, 
all of that money was put into education, with the leadership of the 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, and myself.
  While I agree that we ought to have more money in education, I must 
oppose this amendment. If the allocation stays as it is, and no 
additional money is added to the subcommittee allocation by an 
agreement reached between the President and the leadership in the 
Congress, then there will be a 10.5 percent cut on many, many very, 
very important programs. These programs included the National 
Institutes of Health, employment and training and older workers' jobs 
programs, Social Security Administration, nutrition and 

[[Page S416]]
other programs for the elderly, LIHEAP fuel assistance, community and 
migrant health centers, Ryan White on AIDS, maternal and child health 
substance abuse, railroad retirement benefits and many, many others.
  Now, that is simply an intolerable situation. What the Senator from 
Massachusetts may be intending to do here is to get momentum to have 
more money in education. I have already suggested that I believe that 
is counterproductive because I would favor that as a matter of 
principle, but cannot support this amendment. There are other Senators 
I know who would also favor it as a matter of principle. So if you take 
a look at the number of Senators who are going to vote in favor of this 
amendment, it is not going to be representative of those who would like 
to have more funding in education.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Nickles.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask my colleague from Pennsylvania, is it not correct 
that the House has finished their business, and if we amend this, we 
jeopardize--or have the possibility of having another Government 
shutdown because of this amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct. That argument was made earlier. It led 
to the counterargument of should we have to defer because the House is 
not in session? I am somewhat unwilling to base action on the House not 
being in session. But the Senator from Oklahoma is correct that the 
House is not in session and that the practical reality would be that 
there would be no continuing resolution. I had said earlier to the 
Senator from Illinois that, as much as the funding is in jeopardy in 
Illinois and Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, it would be more so if we shut 
down the Government.
  I have relied principally on the substantive arguments that this 
amendment simply takes too much away from Peter to pay Paul, and that 
the resolution is going to have to come with the subcommittee bill and 
with the reallocation of funds. I think there will be more funds, Mr. 
President. There have been signals given that there will be an 
additional $5 billion on a number of programs, which will have to be 
shared with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Veterans 
Administration. But I expect a significant amount of money to be added 
as a result of the negotiations to the subcommittee which has 
jurisdiction over education.
  That concludes my argument. I will allow my colleague from 
Massachusetts to take his last minute, and then I will seek to regain 
the floor before formally yielding the remainder of the time before 
making a point of order under section 311 of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in response to Senator Nickles, the House 
is in session for a pro forma, or whatever, and it can be ratified by 
the House later this afternoon.
  The Republicans will raise a point of order. The point of order is 
based on section 311 of the Budget Act, which requires that levels of 
all spending should not exceed the totals in the budget reconciliation 
for the whole year. By that standard, we are already over the 1996 
allocation because there is no budget reconciliation bill enacted at 
this point. So by the majority's reasoning, the two underlying 
continuing resolutions and previous continuing resolution, as well, 
also would violate the Budget Act, and a point of order could have been 
raised against them, as well, which shows the double standard applied 
to this education amendment.
  Mr. President, with this amendment, we are taking the commitment of 
the President and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate 
that says we are going to protect education, and we are going to insist 
that that be the case by, at least, assuring the 1995 levels for the 
next 49 days so that the budget can be worked out between the President 
and the Congress and enacted--and protect education. This provides the 
basis for that program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do not believe I have yielded back my 
time yet. I intend to do so, but first I wish to say that the current 
level of budget authority and outlays exceed the aggregate levels set 
forth in the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. The pending 
amendment provides additional new budget authority and will result in 
additional outlays in that year and its adoption will cause the 
aggregate levels of budget authority and outlays to be further 
exceeded. I, therefore, raise a point of other under section 311 of the 
Budget Act against this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment and 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Coats], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator 
from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], and the 
Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Campbell] would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hol-
lings] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 40, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 1 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--40

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bennett
     Campbell
     Coats
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Hollings
     Kyl
     Shelby
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the ayes are 51, the nays 
are 40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The amendment fails.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader. The 
Senator will suspend for a moment. The Senate will come to order.
  The Chair recognizes the minority leader.

                          ____________________