[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 32 (Monday, March 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1668-S1675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, II
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report H.R. 3019.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3019) making appropriations for fiscal year
1996 to make a further downpayment toward a balanced budget,
and for other purposes.
[[Page S1669]]
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate begins
consideration of H.R. 3019, the omnibus appropriations bill, providing
funding for the departments and agencies normally covered for the five
regular fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. These are appropriations
bills that have not yet become law, and this legislation is necessary
because the existing funding authority under the provisions of Public
law 104-99 expires this Friday, March 15.
After I have concluded my opening remarks, I will offer a substitute
amendment on behalf of the Appropriations Committee incorporating the
text of S. 1594, as reported from our committee last Wednesday. Senate
report 104-236 explains the committee's recommendations on the measure.
We are taking the unusual step of reporting an original bill to be
offered as a substitute to the House to expedite the Senate's
consideration of this necessary legislation.
Mr. President, the committee substitute provides funding that would
normally be included in the five regular fiscal year 1996
appropriations bills that have not become law. These are Commerce,
District of Columbia, Interior, Labor-HHS, and VA-HUD. Three of those
five--Commerce, Interior, and VA-HUD--were vetoed by the President. The
committee has attempted to respond to the President's objections listed
in his veto message and to modify objectionable language in the two
bills remaining before the Congress in hopes of clearing procedural
roadblocks and earning the President's approval, finally bringing an
end to our fiscal year 1996 appropriations process.
For example, in the Commerce portion of our committee substitute, we
have responded to the President's concern about the Cops on the Beat
Program by earmarking $975 million, within the $1.9 billion block
grant, exclusively for that program. An additional $25 million was
earmarked for drug courts. Additional funding was also provided for the
Legal Services Corporation, the Ounce of Prevention Council, and the
GLOBE Program in NOAA, all in response to objections raised by the
President in his veto of the Commerce bill.
In the Interior bill, the committee recommends modifying the timber
salvage language and the language concerning the Tongass National
Forest in Alaska, attempting to, again, address the President's
concerns in those areas.
And for the VA-HUD bill, we have recommended additional funding for
National Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on
Environmental Quality, and the Community Development Financial
Institutions Program, all in specific response to objections raised in
the President's veto message.
All of these adjustments have been made within the constraints of our
existing funding allocations under the budget resolution. I might say,
Mr. President, that the funding reductions achieved in discretionary
appropriations for nondefense programs constitute the only deficit
reduction achievement in the 104th Congress. Our committee has more
than done its share.
In addition to these funding adjustments, the committee recommends
contingent appropriations for certain programs if, and only if, a
subsequent agreement is reached between the President and the Congress
with respect to Federal expenditures for fiscal year 1996 and future
years.
For some months now, there has been discussion on both sides of the
aisle in both Houses of Congress about providing additional funding for
certain discretionary programs in the context of a larger agreement on
the budget. Republican budget negotiators offered an estimated $10
billion in budget authority and $5 billion in outlays last December.
The administration has come forward recently with $8.1 billion in
budget authority and an estimated $3.5 billion in outlays.
Title IV of our committee substitute would provide $4.7 billion in
budget authority and something in the neighborhood of $2 billion in
outlays in additional funding beyond that provided in title I of the
bill if--that two-letter word--if agreement can be reached on how to
provide those additional resources.
Let me add parenthetically that we are the Appropriations Committee
and we are not the negotiating committee on the long-term budget
solution. So we have not, in any way, attempted to prescribe how that
agreement should be reached. That is not in our jurisdiction.
Our committee did not view its responsibility to come up with those
additional resources with offsets derived from programs within the
jurisdiction of other committees. It is not for us to decide whether to
extend the ticket tax or impose a new banking fee or require the
formation of a new uranium enrichment corporation, nor is it our proper
role to stipulate the specifics of a potential agreement between the
President and the Congress. That is the leadership responsibility.
It is our responsibility, however, to recommend what we believe to be
appropriate levels of funding for programs within our jurisdiction, and
we have done so.
If an agreement can be reached, our committee recommends additional
funding for the Advanced Technology Program, contributions to
international organizations and peacekeeping efforts, for energy
conservation, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
for job training, education and health programs, and for several
housing programs. These recommendations are detailed in an explanatory
statement that I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record at
the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, all of these changes and new
recommendations represent the committee's best effort to respond to the
legitimate concerns of the administration, changing circumstances, and
the view of our colleagues so that we can bring fiscal year 1996 to a
close at last and begin our work on fiscal year 1997.
Despite the absence of enthusiastic support from the administration
and its comments on our efforts to date, I remain hopeful that the
President and his advisers will look favorably upon our
recommendations. We have made a sincere effort to respond to the
President's concerns. I believe we have gone about as far as we can. If
there are the votes to do more, we will, but it is imperative that we
move on and, I must add, stay within the budget resolution parameters.
Whatever additions over and above have to be, obviously, offset. If
those offsets can be found, that will be the requirement on any
amendment that would be offered to expand beyond the scope of this
bill.
Finally, Mr. President, I should not overlook the supplementals
provided in the bill our committee recommends to the Senate today.
Slightly over $2 billion is recommended in supplementals for disaster
relief and for United States operations in Bosnia. Approximately $1.2
billion is provided for disaster relief, all recommended with an
emergency declaration under the terms of the Budget Act and subject to
a subsequent request from the President.
Funding in the amount of approximately $1 billion is provided for
Bosnia operations, partially offset by $820 million in defense
rescissions.
In addition, $70 million is recommended in response to the
President's request for aid to Jordan.
This is a major piece of legislation, and like all omnibus packages,
it contains many things that various Senators will support and a number
of various Senators will oppose. I do not ordinarily support such
measures in the appropriations process, but I do believe the committee
substitute represents the best option available to us at the time. I
hope the Senate will proceed expeditiously and adopt the committee
substitute in the earliest possible time.
Exhibit 1
Title I and Title IV Add-Backs
(and list of dropped/modified legislative riders)
In addition to the $4.7 billion contingency funding
contained in Title IV, the Committee proposes increased
funding from conference levels in Title I of the FY 1996
Omnibus Appropriations bill in efforts to address concerns
and priorities expressed by the Administration.
We are trying to come up with a package that we can all
agree upon. It is critical that
[[Page S1670]]
an Omnibus bill is signed--provisions must be made for these
agencies that have been in limbo for the last six months so
that they can do their jobs and we can move on to the FY 97
cycle. That is why we are so earnest about working with the
Administration to devise a plan that can be cleared by
Congress and that the President will sign. This is our last,
best effort. Failure to enact this bill will likely result in
an extension of the current C.R. until September 30th. No one
likes this prospect.
We must not lose sight of efforts to balance the budget,
and that is why some increases are contingent upon a balanced
budget agreement with the President. However, in Title I, we
are recommending increases in response to the President's
concerns; we have augmented dozens of conference funding
levels with absolutely no strings attached. We are making a
good-faith effort to accommodate the President's requests.
Programs whose conference levels that have been increased
in response to the Administration's requests for add-backs
include: Community Oriented Policing [COPS] Program (Violent
Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance): $975,000,000. This program received no direct
funding in the conference report to accompany H.R. 2076, the
fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary
Appropriations bill.
Drug Courts: $25,000,000 for Drug Courts, which also did
not receive funding in the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2076.
Legal Services Corporation: $300,000,000, an increase of
$22,000,000 over the level in the conference report to H.R.
2076.
Global Learning to Benefit the Environment Program [GLOBE]
(NOAA): $7,000,000. This program received no funding in H.R.
2076's conference report.
National Parks Service: $1,322,000,000, which exceeds by
$38,000,000 the level in the conference report to H.R. 1977,
the fiscal year 1996 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration:
$1,380,000,000, an increase of $270,000,000 over the
conference level for H.R. 2127, the fiscal year 1996 Labor,
HHS, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research: $128,000,000,
which exceeds the H.R. 2127 conference report level by
$1,000,000.
Developmental Disabilities: $112,000,000, an increase of
$2,000,000 over the conference report (H.R. 2127) level.
The overall EPA level is increased to $5,951,000,000, which
is $340,000,000 more than was included in the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2099, the fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD
and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill.
Under EPA, $490,000,000 was provided for enforcement,
$40,000,000 more than was included in the conference report.
Superfund receives an additional appropriation of
$100,000,000, bringing its total to $1,252,000,000.
Clean Water: $1,225,000,000 under title I, an increase of
$100,000,000 over the conference level.
Council on Environmental Quality; $2,000,000, which is
double the CEQ conference level.
Community Development Financial Institutions; $50,000,000.
No funding was provided for the CDFI program in the
conference report to accompany H.R. 2099.
Economic Development Initiatives: $80,000,000. No funding
was provided for EDI in the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2099.
Severely Distressed Public Housing: $380,000,000, an
increase of $100,000,000 over the H.R. 2099 conference report
level.
Title IV Contingency funding programs, that is, programs
which will receive additional funding in the event the
President and Congress are able to reach a balanced budget
agreement, include: National Institutes of Standards and
Technology (NIST)'s Manufacturing Extension Program:
$235,000,000, which received no funding in the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 Commerce,
Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill.
Department of Commerce's contributions to International
Peacekeeping: $215,000,000 on top of an original conference
report level of $700,000,000.
Department of Labor's School to Work program: $91,000,000
in addition to $95,000,000 in the level in the conference
report to H.R. 2127, the fiscal year 1996 Labor, HHS,
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
Dislocated Workers program, Department of Labor:
$333,000,000 in addition to an original appropriation of
$867,000,000 in the Omnibus bill's title I.
Summer Youth Jobs, Department of Labor: $635,000,000. This
program received no funding in the conference to accompany
H.R. 2127, the fiscal year 1996, Labor, HHS, Education and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
Head Start, Department of Health and Human Services:
$137,000,000 in addition to an appropriation of
$3,397,000,000 in title I of the Omnibus bill.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration:
$134,000,000 on top of an appropriation of $1,380,000,000 in
title I of the Omnibus bill.
Goals 2000, Department of Education: $1,278,000,000 in
addition to $6,514,000,000 in title I of the Omnibus bill.
Drug-Free Schools program: $200,000,000, a matching amount
to the level appropriated under title I of the Omnibus bill.
Charter Schools: $8,000,000, a matching amount to the level
appropriated under title I of the Omnibus bill.
Education Technology: $10,000,000, in addition to
$25,000,000 in title I of the Omnibus bill.
Environmental Protection Agency, Overall Enforcement,
$162,000,000 in addition to $5,951,000,000 in title I of the
Omnibus bill.
Economic Development Initiatives, Housing for the Elderly:
$150,000,000 in addition to $780,000,000 in title I of the
Omnibus bill.
These represent some of the programs that would receive
funding. In addition, the Committee has modified the Tongass
language; dropped Mojave language; dropped most of the riders
contained in the Labor, HHS and Education bill; modified the
Timber Salvage amendment contained in last year's Rescission
bill; and eliminated objectionable environmental riders in
the House VA, HUD and Independent Agencies bill.
Amendment No. 3466
(Purpose: Making omnibus consolidated rescissions and appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes)
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send the substitute amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] proposes an
amendment numbered 3466.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, S. 1594 is a comprehensive attempt by the
Senate Appropriations Committee to bring before the Senate, in a timely
manner, all of the pending fiscal year 1996 appropriation issues. By
that, I mean that this bill not only would fund the five remaining
fiscal year 1996 appropriation bills, which are funded in Title I
through the end of the fiscal year, but the bill also contains the
President's requests for emergency disaster assistance for thousands of
victims of floods and other recent disasters throughout the country.
These disaster assistance payments amount to a little over $1 billion
and are contained in Title II of the bill. Title II also contains $820
million in defense spending relating to Bosnia. These appropriations
are fully offset by rescissions from the committee's defense (050)
allocation. Finally, Title II contains non-military assistance for
Bosnia totaling $200 million. Rather than offset this non-DoD spending
for Bosnia with DoD offsets, as requested by the President, the
committee chose not to offset this $200 million and, instead, to
declare it emergency spending under the appropriate section of the
Budget Enforcement Act.
Mr. President, as all Senators are aware, the administration has
vetoed three of the five fiscal year 1996 appropriation bills contained
in Title I of the pending measure--namely, the Commerce-Justice-State
bill; the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies bill; and the Interior bill.
In all three instances, the President felt that these bills contained
too little funding for what he considered critical public investments.
In addition, each of these vetoed bills contained at least one
objectionable legislative rider. So, the President vetoed these three
bills and, in each instance, his veto was sustained. Similarly, the
Labor-HHS bill has insufficient funding and riders unacceptable to the
administration and the District of Columbia bill, as well, has
unacceptable provisions. In an attempt to resolve these funding and
legislative objections of the administration, the committee-reported
bill has stricken most, but not all, objectionable legislative riders
and, importantly, the committee has included additional appropriations
in Title IV of the bill, subject to enactment into law of a subsequent
Act entitled ``An Act Incorporating an Agreement Between the President
and Congress Relative to Federal Expenditures in Fiscal Year 1996 and
Future Fiscal Years.''
In other words, these additional appropriations contained in Title IV
and totaling $4.8 billion, are beyond the committee's present 602(a)
allocation. Therefore, the chairman chose, and the committee agreed, to
report these additional appropriations and to set forth where the
committee agrees with the President that additional funding should be
provided, but at the same time, to do so in a way which did not exceed
the committee's 602(a) allocation.
[[Page S1671]]
Pages 251-253 of the committee report (104-236), which is on each
Senator's desk, contain a table which sets forth each of the individual
appropriations for the departments and agencies that would receive the
additional funding, subject to enactment of a future deficit reduction
act.
I anticipate a number of amendments on this side of the aisle which
will attempt to fully offset portions, if not all, of the addbacks
included in the committee-reported bill and, consequently, make the
funds available immediately upon enactment in a deficit-neutral way.
In conclusion, Mr. President, we have a long way to go in completing
congressional action on this bill in a very short time. As Senators are
aware, the current continuing resolution expires on midnight this
Friday, March 15th. If Congress has not completed action and the
President has not signed the conference version of the pending measure
by that time, we face another government shutdown. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to work with the managers of the bill so that we may
schedule appropriate amendments in a timely way and complete action on
them expeditiously so that we may get to conference with the House and
complete that conference prior to midnight, March 15th.
Mr. President, I yield the Floor.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). 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.
Modification to Amendment No. 3466
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment
numbered 3466 to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The modification is as follows:
Insert on page 771, after line 17 of the amendment.
SEC. 3006. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, GREENSBORO,
ALABAMA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to Hale County, Alabama, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property consisting of approximately 5.17
acres and located at the Army Reserve Center, Greensboro,
Alabama, that was conveyed by Hale County, Alabama, to the
United States by warranty deed dated September 12, 1988.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property conveyed under subsection (a)
shall be as described in the deed referred to in that
subsection.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under this section as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
Sec. 3007. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$15,000,000 made available for ``Operations and Maintenance,
Army'' in P.L. 104-61 shall be obligated for the remediation
of environmental contamination at the National Presto
Industries, Inc. site in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. These funds
shall be obligated only for the implementation and execution
of the 1988 agreement between the Department of the Army and
National Presto Industries, Inc.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is an error on page 213 of Senate
Report 104-236, which accompanies S. 1594, that I would like to
correct. Chapter 1 of title II of the bill pertains to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, which is under the jurisdiction of the
appropriations subcommittee which I chair. In this chapter, the
committee notes that for fiscal year 1996, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service received a 5.5-percent increase over the amount
appropriated to it for fiscal year 1995. However, this percentage does
not include the supplemental appropriation which the agency received
for fiscal year 1995, and should instead be 3.6 percent.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3467 to Amendment No. 3466
(Purpose: To provide funding for important education initiatives with
an offset)
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for Mr. Harkin
for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Lautenberg,
proposes an amendment numbered 3467 to amendment No. 3466.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we resume debate on the five
remaining fiscal 1996 appropriations bills. We are halfway through the
fiscal year. We have had two Government shutdowns. Our country's
priorities have suffered greatly. Education, in particular, has
suffered a series of extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Last
week, the Appropriations Committee reported the Labor-HHS-Education
bill that again cuts education by more than $3 billion.
Many Republicans, once again, are attempting to pass a bill that
continues these very devastating cuts in education--cuts that include
$679 million from math and reading programs, denying services to
700,000 children; cuts in Head Start of $137 million, depriving 20,000
3- and 4-year-olds of early help that can lead to a lifetime of
achievement; cuts of $266 million in the safe and drug-free school
program, currently serving 23 million children.
In the Republican bill, which passed in the Appropriations Committee,
all funding for the Summer Youth Jobs Program is eliminated. More than
500,000 young people would otherwise benefit from that program.
Spending levels in South Dakota and every other State are affected.
In my State, schools face $5.3 million in reductions in the
availability of education funding for fiscal 1996 and 1997. All this
adds up to the fact that students will not receive the services they
need. We simply cannot allow that to happen if there is any prospect of
avoiding that kind of a disaster in education in the coming year.
This crisis in education is a true emergency. This is not just
rhetoric. This is not something we can wish away. All of these, and
many other programs directly affecting thousands and thousands of
students, will be very directly affected if we cannot address our
country's education needs in a more thoughtful and comprehensive way
than does the bill now before us.
The cuts in education we have experienced over the last several
months represent the single largest reduction in education in history--
a 25-percent cut--at a time when, I remind my colleagues, there is
record enrollment in the public schools. Not only are we seeing
increases in enrollment and a demand for more services, but we are
asking our schools to meet that demand at a time when we are asking
them to absorb a cut of record proportions.
One quarter of every dollar that was available in 1995 has not been
available this year. Next year, nearly 52 million children will be
seeking educational services across the country. That breaks the 1971
baby boom generation record.
Schools and colleges across the country are reporting that they are
unable to plan their budgets and provide the services at the
elementary, secondary, and higher educational levels because of the
extraordinary cuts this bill and the past continuing resolutions
require them to make.
Schools are already planning to lay off teachers and scale back
services as a result of the budget we are contemplating. Not long ago,
the mayors of most of our big cities were in Washington to share their
concerns about the impact these cuts will have on their school
districts. I thought that Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer probably said it
as succinctly and eloquently as any I have heard as he discussed the
impact this 25-percent cut in education will have on the Detroit school
system. ``Which 25 percent,'' he asked, ``of my students should I not
educate?''
We ask, which 25 percent of America's children should be denied help
[[Page S1672]]
with math and reading? Which 25 percent of preschoolers should lose
their chance to go to Head Start? Which 25 percent of children who
attend schools where drugs and violence are problems should be forced
to face those problems alone?
Mr. President, we should not even be asking these questions. We would
not be if Congress had done its job and passed an educational funding
bill over 5 months ago when this fiscal year began. The Republican
failure to fulfill this basic function of Government, causing chaos in
classrooms around the country, is becoming increasingly clear. But the
time has come to end the chaos and to address this problem in a more
forthright manner. The time has come for us to stand up and recognize
that unless we deal with these issues more directly, we will find
ourselves in a situation that continues to increase in seriousness and
increase exponentially in terms of the difficulties it presents for
school districts, as well as for the students themselves.
Throughout the budget process our Republican colleagues have said
that their agenda is about protecting our children's future. The
question we have is, ``How can you protect their future, or ours, if we
deprive children of the education they need to succeed?'' The time to
solve this problem is now. We cannot afford simply to pay lipservice to
it.
The contingency fund that has been incorporated into this bill is, in
my view, an attempt on the part of some Republicans to have it both
ways--to pretend they are funding education but to do so without
releasing any of the money. The so-called addback that we see in this
bill is not real. Enacting this bill into law would not produce one
dime of this contingent funding. If we believe education is important,
we have to ensure that funding is there regardless of contingencies--
regardless of what may or may not occur as a result of additional
action this Congress may take at some point in the future.
Mr. President, that is why every Democrat believes as strongly as we
do that, of all the amendments we are offering, this one holds our
greatest priority. This one says as clearly and as unequivocally as we
can that we cannot mess around with education. We can have our policy
differences throughout the year, and throughout this Congress, but when
it comes to the crunch, when it comes to really dealing with the issue
that we recognize is as important as anything to our future, we have to
ensure that the investment is there.
So this amendment will restore the $3.1 billion in educational cuts
represented in this bill. And when I say ``restore,'' I use that word
very intentionally. We are simply restoring the funding necessary to
bring us to the level schools had the last time we appropriated funds
for education in 1995. This is real money with a real offset. It
restores real funding to the 1995 level without adding one dime to the
deficit. We are willing to consider other offsets. We do not feel
necessarily wedded to these particular ones. If there are others that
are more acceptable, we will certainly take a look at them. But we
wanted to find a dollar-for-dollar offset that allows us to fully
restore the funding in education that we believe to be so critical.
There are two nonnegotiable principles. First, education must be
adequately funded; and, second, education must be fully paid for.
Siphoning off money from education consigns American children to
second-class futures and opportunities that are simply unacceptable.
Democrats are united in opposition and offer this amendment to
reverse the failed policies that got us to the position we are in
today. The chance for all of us to cast a vote for the future of our
country's children lies with this amendment.
Children learn by example. We have an opportunity to set one by
educating them properly and showing them how important they really are,
that their future is our highest priority.
A lot of my colleagues have had a great deal to do with the fact that
we are offering this amendment this afternoon. I applaud them--each and
every one--for their effort. No one has put more effort into education
and the priority it deserves than my colleague from Rhode Island,
Senator Pell. And Senator Harkin, Senator Kerry, Senator Wellstone,
Senator Levin, and certainly Senator Kennedy--who has devoted his
entire public career to the priorities that we argue today must be
included in this bill--they, along with Senator Dodd, Senator Kohl, and
Senator Lautenberg have all indicated how strongly they feel about this
amendment. I applaud them, and thank them for their leadership in
bringing us to this point this afternoon.
Other colleagues are on the floor who seek recognition to speak in
support of this amendment. I yield the floor to allow them to be
recognized.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise merely to congratulate the minority
leader on his speech, and to join him in his emphasis about the
importance of education. It is important for the future of our
children, our young people, and our country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by Senator Daschle, the minority leader. We are talking about the
subject of education.
There is a lot of discussion in this country about where our country
is headed and what kind of economic future we will have. Will we have
jobs? Will we have opportunity? All of this begins with the first step,
which is education.
Thomas Jefferson once said that anyone who believes that a country
can be both ignorant and free believes something that never was and
never can be. Our economic progress in this country starts with
education. That is what the Senator from South Dakota is saying with
this amendment.
Mr. President, I have told this story on the floor a couple of times,
but it is worth repeating. The first week I came to Congress, I walked
into the office of the oldest man in Congress, Claude Pepper, and I saw
something I have not forgotten. Claude Pepper was the oldest man
serving in Congress at the time that I was elected to the Congress. I
walked in, and met him. And he had behind his chair on his wall two
autographed pictures that I have never forgotten. One was an
autographed picture of Orville and Wilbur Wright making the first
airplane flight. And it was autographed ``To Congressman Claude
Pepper'' by Orville Wright before Orville Wright died. Then hanging
just above that was a picture of Neil Armstrong setting his foot on the
Moon autographed ``To Congressman Claude Pepper.''
And I thought about what lies between going from the ground to the
air in the first airplane flight, and then from the ground to the air
to the Moon. What is it that connects that vast difference in
technological achievement? The answer is education.
It struck me when I saw those two pictures that in this one person's
lifetime Claude Pepper had the autographed picture of the first person
to fly and then the first person to go to the Moon. And what did it all
come down to? In this country, a massive investment in education made
possible technological breakthroughs--breakthroughs in virtually every
area--that not only have allowed us to go to the Moon but to cure
polio, and to do so many things in just this century.
Anyone who believes that this country can move ahead by deciding that
education is somehow less important than many other things in our
country just does not understand the value of and the role of education
in building our country's opportunities and our country's future.
I have, I suppose, on a half-dozen occasions in recent months come to
the floor of the Senate and lamented the juxtaposition of two programs
that seem to me to demonstrate the misplaced priorities these days. A
little program which I understand is now funded in this omnibus
appropriations bill--a program called Star Schools that was designed to
try to create Star Schools in the maths and the sciences through the
use of technology--was cut by 40 percent in an earlier continuing
resolution. That little program suffered a 40-percent funding cut--
which I understand has now been reversed--but a 40-percent funding cut
in Star
[[Page S1673]]
Schools at the same time that a 115-percent funding increase was
provided for star wars; a much, much larger program. And it occurred to
me that those who think that we will advance this country's interests
by cutting a Star Schools program while at the same time increasing a
star wars program really do not understand the genesis of progress and
the rewards from the investment in education that have given this
country the kind of economic strength and the kind of glorious past it
has had, and the kind of glorious future it will have if we continue to
make the right decisions in this Congress. The Senator from South
Dakota has offered an amendment that tries to restore some of the
funding for some education programs. There are some who would perhaps
like to go further than the Senator from South Dakota goes. But, for
certain, there are many of us in this Congress who believe that we can
and should provide the kind of funding that is necessary for the
education programs that the Federal Government is involved in without
at all deviating from our goal of balancing the budget. This is not a
question of anything other than selecting the right priorities.
Those of us who have spent time in classrooms in recent years
understand that there are a number of elements that must be present in
our schools in order for education to work in our country. First, there
must be a young student who is interested in learning. Second, there
needs to be a teacher who understands how to teach. And third, parents
who want to be involved in their children's education.
All of those elements are necessary for education to work. But
education also cannot and will not work unless we have funding for
training good teachers, for funding school facilities, unless we make a
commitment to have the best education system in the world.
Aside from this amendment, I hope and I wish that in the Presidential
contest in 1996 and in the political discussions between our two
parties not only in this year but beyond that we will have a thoughtful
and thorough discussion about what role education should play in this
country. Is education a discipline that establishes for us a goal that
we want to have the finest education system in the world? Do we want
America to have an education system that we can say is the best in the
world? Is that our goal? And if so, then how do we reach that goal? It
ought to be our goal. And that is what the Senator from South Dakota is
saying with his amendment. Let us not step back on the issue of
education. Let us not retreat in the investment that we ought to make.
When we tell 55,000 little kids 4 and 5 years old, each of whom has a
name, that we are sorry; we cannot have you in a Head Start Program--
and incidentally, that is a program that works--when we are willing to
tell a Jimmy or Betty or Johnny or Susie that we cannot afford to have
you in a Head Start Program; yes, you come from a low-income family;
yes, you come from a disadvantaged family, but you cannot be in a Head
Start Program, I say that is a shame. That is why we need to select the
right priorities.
Let us fund Head Start. Let us make sure a whole range of these
education programs, school-to-work programs, title I programs, the
vocational education programs, and dozens of other programs that we
know work and make this a better country, let us make sure those
programs are adequately funded. That is what the Senator from South
Dakota's amendment would do. I fully support the amendment and
appreciate the fact that he has offered it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jan Gamby, a fellow of
the Bureau of Land Management, be allowed floor privileges for
discussion we will have shortly on another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President I would like to indicate just for the
record some wrong figures. This bill pending before the floor now does
not cut 25 percent. It is cut 12 percent. The Federal education bill in
this present form represents support for education comprising 67
percent of the national education expenditures. It has been cut, of
course; it has been cut 12 percent as we are moving toward reductions
of Government spending. Thus, the Federal cut is on a base of 6 percent
of national expenditures on education. On the total national
expenditures, it is a 6-percent reduction. With the additional funds in
the title IV, the education cut is reduced less than 5 percent.
Now, those are contingent upon agreements being reached between the
President and the negotiators on the long-term balanced budget.
I just want to make that correction for the record. I wish to say
also that last spring when we allocated the 602(b) allocations we
indicated our strong support on the Senate Appropriations Committee for
education. We allocated $1.5 billion more than the House had allocated
for the Labor, HHS Subcommittee 602(b).
I cannot fault any of the arguments made by those advancing the
amendment in terms of commitment to education, and I might say I do not
take a back seat to anybody on that side of the aisle or anyplace else
in this Senate Chamber on supporting education. But, nevertheless, I
think we have to realize that when the proponents of this amendment say
that it is offset, Mr. President, I have to correct that as well. It is
not totally offset because even if you look at the uranium enrichment
source to which they dip in for an offset, it does not in 1996 fully
offset it. In fact, it costs money to do the uranium offset. It will in
1997 more than provide money to offset back for the additions made in
1996 and 1997.
But let us understand this. We are offering here in this amendment
not a total offset, which I think probably would make it subject to a
point of order. Second, there is an emergency declaration used to
compensate for the inability to totally dollar-for-dollar offset. Now,
this is the right of the Senate. It is the right of the Congress at any
time to put an emergency to any measure. I do not challenge the
correctness. I am challenging the wisdom in adding an emergency
declaration as a part of the offset that does not happen in a dollar-
for-dollar offset.
I understand that we are going to lay this amendment down according
to the leader and embark upon a major debate on this issue tomorrow
when the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, Senator
Specter, will be here to engage in an analysis and discussion of this
amendment.
Mr. President, I also understand the Senators from North Dakota are
anxious, once the discussion or comments made on this amendment have
been finished, to offer an amendment to the emergency supplemental that
is incorporated in this vehicle relating to North Dakota which we will
be very happy to accommodate in that we have accommodated Idaho,
Washington, and Oregon for similar problems that North Dakota has.
Amendment No. 3467 to Amendment No. 3466
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to support, as an original
cosponsor, the amendment proposed this afternoon by the Senator from
South Dakota with the objective of restoring some of the funds that
have been cut from the education budget of this country.
I know that most Americans will quickly agree that money is by no
means the whole solution for the schools of this country. I think all
of us agree with that. The reason this fight is taking place is not
because of some automatic response that suggests that, ``Gee, they are
cutting education. It doesn't matter how much. We must fight to put the
money back.'' This amendment is not such a reflexive action.
But I think, just as most Americans would automatically agree that
throwing money at something is not the solution, so they would also
agree that they want schools that are free of drugs and that are safe.
So they would also agree that they want 3- and 4-year-olds to have the
maximum exposure to early intervention school programs. So they would
also agree that it is critical to take kids who are at risk in their
teenage years, who have either dropped out of school or have a drug
problem or are facing some other kind of difficulty in life, and give
them an opportunity to get into the workplace. So they would also agree
that it is important to share the wealth of this great Nation with a
disadvantaged
[[Page S1674]]
community, an urban community which depends on the property tax to fund
its schools but which has very, very little tax base because of the
problems it faces, in order to help the kids in that community get a
decent education.
What we have here in the Republican approach to this continuing
resolution is a disavowal of each and every one of those realities. I
do not think there is any American in a community that is affected who
is coming to the Congress and saying, ``Hey, we only have 50 percent of
our kids getting drug education last year. Let us lower the funding for
drug education.'' Or, ``Hey, we know that this community cannot match
the high-income communities in the rest of our State in the local funds
it invests in schooling its children, but, nevertheless, let us lower
the Federal funding provided to that community and make it harder to
educate its children.''
No one has come to me in my State and said, ``Senator, it's too bad
that those kids at the Jeremiah Burke School only had 12 computers a
year ago for 900 kids. But that's really not so important. Let's make
sure they only have five next year--or maybe none.''
That is the effect of what is being proposed by the Republicans in
their approach to education, because the hard, inescapable truth in the
United States of America is that we have district after district that
does not have sufficient resources to provide kids with an adequate
education.
I was at the Healy School in Somerville, MA, the other day, which
receives title I money.
In that community there are kids who are in a joint first and second
grade class. Some of those kids have special needs, and they are trying
to mainstream through the education process those kids with special
needs, because to take them out of the mainstream is to have them miss
the very important experiences to which other children the same age are
exposed. And the evidence is that they perform better and advance
further scholastically when they feel they are part of the regular
group.
It is an important component of building self-esteem. It is an
important component of helping people to grow up to be productive
citizens. It is an important component of reducing the later costs that
are imposed on taxpayers in this country for people who are not able to
be part of the mainstream.
In that school in Somerville, they have teachers' aides, part-time
teachers helping the regular teachers to be able to keep these kids
progressing as close to the norm as possible.
What is the rationale for the Republicans to come along and say,
``That doesn't matter, we're going to cut Federal funding for that
effort, because we have to balance the budget of this country?''
We do not disagree, of course, that we have to balance the Federal
budget. In fact, we emphatically state that we must balance the budget.
The debate is not over whether we have to balance the budget, the
debate is over how the budget should be balanced. And most Americans, I
believe, would say, ``Do we really need to build a B-2 bomber in 1996
instead of educating these kids in Somerville and in all of America's
other communities from coast to coast? Could we not find other parts of
our $1.6 trillion budget to trim in order to guarantee we have the best
education system in the world?''
I fully understand that we need standards, we need testing, we need a
change of attitude in the school place. We need principals who have the
power and authority to direct the schools and hold teachers accountable
for satisfactory teaching. Of course, we need all those things.
But, Mr. President, we need to guarantee that our kids have
computers. We need to guarantee that our schools are wired to the
computer age. We need to guarantee that the libraries that they have
are open in the afternoon. We need to guarantee that those libraries
that are open have current reference books.
We need to guarantee that teachers are not doing just the minimum in
order to stay employed, that they are not just xeroxing materials in
order to be able to put something in front of children so they have
something to work on during the day. We need teachers striving to be
the best they can be, and motivating children to be the best they can
be.
The Republicans, a couple of months ago, suggested to us that it was
OK to zero out the money for summer jobs--eliminate summer jobs
entirely. That was their priority. They went back home and talked to
their constituents and read the polls, and they saw their agenda was
not working as they intended. The American people did not like what
they saw. So they came back to Washington and have included in this
bill about two-thirds of the amount the President requested for summer
jobs for teenagers. But they are not through with their intransigence.
They have nominally appropriated funds to pay the costs of two-thirds
as many jobs as the President requested, but then in the same bill they
prohibit expenditure of those funds until a further deficit reduction
bill is enacted that is to their liking. They say they are no longer
holding schoolchildren and teenagers who want to work as hostages, but
we all should look behind the story they are telling and closely
inspect the facts of their bill.
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program is being cut by over 50
percent. I do not understand that. This will equate to a reduction of
about $2 million from a program that serves over 14,000 kids in
Massachusetts. It serves 39 million students nationwide. I do not know
of any American today who will come in here and say, ``We've got the
drug problem licked, let's go home.''
We just appointed a new drug czar. Most people will agree that the
incidents of youth violence are increasing. Most people have accepted
the stark reality of statistics that show us that 36 percent of all the
kids in the United States of America are born out of wedlock, which
means that they are mostly, not all, but mostly starting in one-parent
families with one parent who has to struggle to make ends meet.
Most people in this country understand that those kids are going to
be most at risk, and most people understand the devastating effects of
drugs within those communities where a huge number of children are born
out of wedlock.
So what is the rationale for reducing our effort to provide teen
counselors, peer programs, all of the DARE programs and other efforts
in our schools that make a difference in the lives of these at-risk
children and young people? There is no credible rationale, Mr.
President, and yet, in the name of balancing the budget and so-called
fiscal austerity, the Republicans suggest that we can do more with less
with respect to our education system.
The distinguished Senator from Oregon said earlier, ``Well, we're not
really cutting the amount of money being claimed, we are actually
cutting a lesser amount of money.'' But the fact is that the only way
that a lesser amount of money is being cut is if you count the funny
money in this bill. What do I mean by funny money? I mean the money in
the bill, $8 billion, that depends on a future agreement with respect
to budget legislation.
Let me read the very language of the bill. Page 780 in S. 1594, the
pending legislation, line 20:
No part of any appropriation contained in this title shall
be made available for obligation or expenditure, nor any
authority granted herein be effective, until the enactment
into law of a subsequent Act entitled ``An Act Incorporating
an Agreement Between the President and Congress Relative to
Federal Expenditures in the Fiscal Year 1996 and Future
Fiscal Years.''
So, Mr. President, this is funny money. This is a fake. This is a
scam. This is the Republicans coming along with another political
gimmick to suggest to the country that they are really providing money
for purposes the American people believe are vital when they are not
providing money at all, because what they are providing depends on a
subsequent agreement for the entire budget which, as we all know,
depends on both sides being willing to move much further than they have
given any indication they are prepared to move.
The result will be even worse than the funding cuts that will be
enforced when the subsequent budget agreement legislation proves to be
a mirage that is unreachable by anyone. In fact, no school district in
America can plan its budget for the next school year, because they do
not know how much
[[Page S1675]]
money they will get for these purposes from the Federal Government.
Is that a real problem? Let me just share with you this information.
Because there are no 1996 commitments for key Federal education
programs, Boston is proceeding to budget on a worst-case scenario,
because they have to. Why? Because Boston must pay all teachers who
have a contract for next year unless a teacher has been notified he or
she is being laid off by May 15. So the school system has to plan for
the worst, and send out the layoff notices.
What does that do for morale in the schools? What does that do for
the capacity to build education reform programs and other areas where
we have been making some progress in Massachusetts and other States?
The truth is that in school district after school district, people
are left, by virtue of this game that is being played, making worst-
case plans and not being able to implement the full measure of the
reforms for which most of us have fought very hard over the last few
years.
Goals 2000 is an example of those reforms. The Republicans are
cutting Goals 2000 money. Why? Goals 2000 money is used to help
teachers get the ongoing education and the ongoing training necessary
to help them deal with reform, to produce reform, to teach better, to
be state-of-the-art teachers and, hopefully, transition our kids
successfully into the modern, complex workplace of the future.
Mr. President, all you have to do is look at the statistics on
reading in America. If one does so, it is then impossible to answer why
we are making these kinds of reductions.
Only one-third of the kids in the United States of America last year
who graduated from high school, graduated with a passable--passable--
reading level. Out of 2\1/2\ million kids who graduated from high
school, fully two-thirds were below a basic high school reading level.
Out of 2\1/2\ million kids who graduated from high school in America,
only 100,000 had a world-class reading level. And what are we doing at
the Federal level? We are going to pull back from the incentives we can
offer for providing an adequate education for our kids.
Mr. President, every one of these efforts, frankly, is critical.
Title I money enables schools to provide additional training in math
and in reading and also provides technology resources and assistance to
parents of at-risk students in order to help those students learn to
read and write adequately.
I can introduce you to one Boston student who started as a below-
average elementary student, but after completing the title I program,
this student went on to become his high school's class president and is
currently enrolled at MIT in Cambridge.
There are, thank God, thousands of other similar examples. I know
students who were having great difficulty with math or with reading
who, only because of the extra attention they were able to get, were
able to go on in the mainstream, attend college, graduate and secure a
career, and, in some cases, proceed to an even higher level of
education.
It is incomprehensible, Mr. President, that in 1996, out of our
Nation's $1.6 trillion budget, when we know that there are wiser
offsets, we are being asked to reduce the safety in our schools, the
quality of our education, and the access by kids to additional training
and assistance, and to make it impossible for our children to receive
the highest level of teaching. My colleagues supporting this amendment
and I believe that all of these things are being sacrificed needlessly.
I might add that, given the new recognition in recent months of the
problems in the American workplace, it is even more puzzling that our
friends on the other side of the aisle would find some virtue in trying
to balance the budget by giving a tax cut to the wealthy while
simultaneously taking away help for kids to go to school in the poor
communities of this country.
It is ironic. Patrick Buchanan and the Republican Party have been
experiencing a certain awakening with respect to some of those things
that many of us have been fighting for in the Senate for a long time--
the problem of people raising their wages in this modern economy, the
problem of people holding on to the jobs that they have or getting the
jobs they want to have, all of which in today's world depends more and
more on the linkage of technology and skill and training to a
particular job opportunity.
What is the rationale, in the face of that clear connection, for
reducing our commitment to those kinds of efforts, particularly where
each of those efforts has been proven to be competent, valuable, and
productive?
It is not as if our colleagues are coming to the floor of the Senate
and saying, ``Look, here's this program. It is a terrible program. It
doesn't do anything. The kids aren't learning. We have had 10 years of
wasted money. Nobody seems to be able to get ahead.'' That is not the
evidence. I hear no one making that claim. Instead, they are saying,
``Our eyes are closed. Our minds are made up. We have to cut these
programs regardless.''
The evidence is that every single one of these efforts has made a
difference in the lives of children, in the schools they attend, and in
the communities where they live. And that is what makes up the fabric
of this country. And that is what produces the real values of this
Nation.
Mr. President, if we are going to hear lectures about values, it
should be clear that the vote we will have on this education amendment
will be a vote about values. If you care about values, you are not
going to strip money from children who are trying to mainstream in a
school in an inner city that is struggling to obtain adequate
resources. You are not going to take that away from them in order to
give some larger tax break to people who have seen the stock market go
up 43 percent in the last year.
So, I respectfully say to my colleagues that this is one of the most
important amendments the Senate will consider this year, and the vote
we will cast on it will be one of the most important votes we have an
opportunity to cast in the Senate this year, because this really is a
vote about where we want this country to go and what kind of people we
are going to be. No one has made up the statistics or the studies which
document the linkage of early intervention, of structure, of quality
reading and math and science education to the ability of students to
achieve their maximum potential.
I hope that tomorrow or the next day, whenever we vote on this
measure, we will articulate to the Nation our sense of the proper
values in this country and of the proper priorities in this budget.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North
Dakota.
____________________