[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10776-S10777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          EDUCATION IN AMERICA

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I want to speak for a few minutes on 
the issue of education funding, which is of vital importance to most 
Americans and certainly is to the people in my State.
  First of all, I think we need to put the issue into context. When I 
go around my State of New Mexico, I talk to people at townhall meetings 
and I ask, what percentage of the Federal budget do you believe is 
committed to improving education? Usually I start by saying, ``How many 
of you think 15 percent of the Federal budget is committed to 
education?'' Quite a few hands go up in the audience. Then I say, ``How 
about 10 percent?'' and even more hands go up. I say, ``Five percent?'' 
and not that many hands. So the consensus in my State is that perhaps 
we are spending about 10 percent of our Federal budget on education.
  Madam President, the truth is, we are spending 1.4 percent, less than 
2 percent, of our Federal budget on education. It is in this context 
that we need to consider the proposals which have come forward in this 
Congress to actually cut back on Federal support for education.
  At the same time, as baby boomers' children enter the schools, as 
enrollment grows in my State, as it is growing in many States around 
this country, we are seeing Federal support for education dropping in 
absolute terms.
  I had a chance to visit Las Cruces, NM, with a group of experts on 
education who were looking at the problem of Hispanic students who are 
dropping out of our schools in very large numbers in my State and 
throughout the country. We were having lunch in a restaurant, an 
excellent restaurant named Roberto's in Las Cruces. I recommend it to 
anybody. But we were having lunch there, and a woman recognized me and 
came over to introduce herself.
  She said that she was a seventh grade teacher. She taught math in the 
seventh grade. So I suggested she sit down with this group of experts 
and talk to them about what needs she saw in education.
  The first thing she raised was, ``We would certainly appreciate 
anything that you can do to get us more money for supplies.'' And I 
said, ``What do you mean, `supplies?' '' She said, ``We get an 
allocation. I, as a seventh grade teacher, get an allocation of $50 a 
year for supplies for my entire class, and that includes the cost of 
copying materials that I want to pass out to my students. So we wind up 
either with me not providing the materials or with me paying for it out 
of my pocket or having bake sales or depending upon charity of some 
kind to cover this cost.''
  Madam President, it is in that context that we are talking about 
cutting funds for education here at the national level. It is also in 
the context of a defense bill which is pending or will be pending soon 
here in the Senate that goes $9.4 billion over what the Pentagon 
requested this year.
  So we are cutting back on education funds and adding over $9 billion 
to what the Defense Department requested, and I think the American 
people believe that our priorities are out of whack. The priorities of 
this Congress are not the priorities of the American people. The 
American people would like us to spend more than 1.4 percent of the 
Federal budget on education.
  I also want to say that this issue about whether the Federal 
Government should help or whether it is none of the Federal 
Government's business is really an inside-the-beltway kind of an issue, 
as far as I can tell. When I go home and talk to teachers and parents, 
they are not particularly concerned about which level of government is 
providing the support. What they want is to see the local school 
district and the

[[Page S10777]]

State and the Federal Government working together to solve the real 
problems of providing quality education.
  This is a real issue here. Today, as I understand it, some Members on 
the House side announced yet another proposal to repeal Goals 2000. 
They did so by making a statement about how this is a first step toward 
eliminating Federal involvement in education. Madam President, this is 
not the burning issue, this issue of eliminating Federal involvement. 
It is not the burning issue in my State. The issue is how do we get the 
resources and the support to educate our children in the way we believe 
they should be educated.
  In a State like mine, which is growing, student enrollment is also 
growing. It is estimated by the year 2002 we will have 20,000 
additional students in my State. These are students who we are not 
presently planning funding to support.
  We need technology in our schools. I think everybody here, the 
Presiding Officer, has been a leader in trying to assist schools in 
obtaining technology to improve education.
  We need to put our money where our mouth is on this issue of 
technology for education, and begin here at the Federal level to 
support local school districts and States in their efforts to obtain 
technology and upgrade the quality of education through the use of 
technology.
  We simply have to do more than the House has proposed to do. In my 
view, I am encouraged that there have been negotiations. I am 
encouraged there seems to be a bipartisan consensus to restore funds to 
a previous level in most areas. Frankly, Madam President, I believe we 
need to do better than this bipartisan discussion seems to be taking 
us.
  As I understand it, the majority leader has an amendment he will 
offer in this area. It should be praised in several respects. It is 
strong in such areas as special education grants to the States and 
title I funding and several smaller student aid programs. However, as I 
understand the amendment, it would be at a level of $2.3 billion, which 
is still substantially less than the $3.1 billion that Senator Harkin 
would propose in his alternative amendment. By cutting away at some of 
those funds that Senator Harkin would provide, it keeps us from 
addressing some key areas.
  In particular, as I understand it, the Lott amendment provides no 
additional funds for key programs such as the Goals 2000 Program, for 
bilingual education, for school-to-work, for teacher training, for the 
TRIO Program, nor does the Lott amendment provide $68 million in 
additional funds the Department needs to continue its very successful 
direct lending program. This amendment also fails to increase education 
technology programs to the same extent that the Harkin amendment would. 
In addition, the Lott amendment would appear to not include any 
additional funding for Head Start or job training programs.
  As I understand the Harkin amendment, in contrast, it increases 
spending levels for key programs well beyond the previous year's level 
in the committee bill or in the Lott amendment. There is $136 million 
more for Goals 2000, $77 million for bilingual and immigrant education, 
$227 million more for education technology programs. Clearly, those are 
very important to us as we approach the new century.
  Cutting, freezing, or even reluctantly supporting minor increases in 
education funding is simply the wrong way to go, in my opinion. We need 
some restructuring in our schools. All of the problems in our schools 
cannot be solved by additional resources. That is clear. We need 
smaller schools. We need better trained teachers. We need to have 
classrooms that are better equipped. Clearly, funding is part of the 
solution. Just as funding is part of the solution to improving and 
modernizing our defense capability, adequate resources are part of the 
solution to improving and upgrading the quality of education for our 
students.
  I hope very much, Madam President, before the Congress adjourns, we 
can get a chance here on the floor of the Senate to vote for a level of 
funding which is equal to what the President requested in education. I 
do not think his request was in any way excessive. It still keeps us at 
about 1.5 percent of the official budget. It is a very modest increase 
by any measure. I believe that is consistent with what the American 
people would like to see in the area of education.
  I hope, very much, that we will have a chance to vote on that level 
which is represented by the Harkin amendment. I urge my colleagues to 
support that. I know it is consistent with the people I speak to in my 
home State. I believe it is consistent with the majority view 
throughout this country.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________