[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10656-H10663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           IMPACT OF CHERNOBYL DISASTER ON NATION OF BELARUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Coble). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know that I will be joined by some other 
colleagues to talk about education cuts and the effect of Mr. Dole's 
economic plan on education programs in the Nation.
  Before my colleagues join me, I would just like to take some of the 
time here during this 60 minutes to talk about another issue unrelated 
to the issue of education but an important issue to many constituents 
in my district.
  This Saturday I will be appearing at a dinner sponsored by members of 
the Belorussian community in my district in New Jersey. They will be 
raising money for the victims of Chernobyl, of the Chernobyl nuclear 
accident which took place about 10 years ago now.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to detail, if I could, for about 5 minutes 
some of the problems that resulted from the Chernobyl disaster in the 
country of

[[Page H10657]]

Belarus and also talk about some of the problems that that nation now 
faces to its very independence.
  On April 26, 1986, reactor No. 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant 
caught fire and caused an explosion of epic proportions. This explosion 
measured 7 on the 7-level scale of nuclear accidents in comparison to 
the Three Mile Island accident, which measured 5.
  Although one decade has passed since this explosion, the aftermath 
and truth remain very clouded about what happened. Even though this 
explosion spewed highly radioactive elements into the atmosphere, the 
Soviet Union, or the government of the then-Soviet Union, remained 
largely silent. Twelve hours passed before the Kremlin leadership 
created a government commission to respond to the blast. It took an 
additional 24 hours before they began to evacuate the nuclear plant's 
company town.

                              {time}  1630

  And 48 hours after the meltdown, the government publicly announced 
the Chernobyl explosion. This announcement told the victims very 
little. It was not until August of that same year that the Soviets 
announced that 50 million curies of radiation had been released by the 
Chernobyl nuclear reactor. Current research states that the actual 
amount of radiation spewed by the power plant ranged from 150 million 
to 200 million curies. In comparison the Three Mile Island accident 
released a mere 15 curies.
  Years have passed and the Soviet Union is no more, and Belarus and 
neighboring nations such as the Ukraine are still suffering from the 
sickness and misery from that accident. I am particularly concerned 
about the state of the millions of children who suffered and continue 
to suffer from the effects of radiation and who will probably suffer 
most of their lives from the long-term effects of radiation. The 
medical, environmental, and psychological effects still plague the 
affected regions which, as I said, include parts of Belarus, Ukraine, 
and Russia. A study in the Nature Journal states that children born in 
Belarus in 1994 to parents who lived in the area during the meltdown 
suffered from twice the normal rate of a specific type of mutation. 
Germline mutations, found in sperm and egg DNA, are being passed on 
from generation to generation. The World Health Organization speculates 
that one in every 10 children living in the irradiated zones during the 
summer of 1986 have contracted thyroid cancer.
  In addition to the medical effects, the impact of the environmental 
damage is still felt today. The 1986 meltdown contaminated 100,000 
square miles of once arable farmland. This encompasses approximately 20 
percent of all of Belarus, 8 percent of Ukraine, and 1 percent of the 
Russian Federation. The irradiated soil poses seemingly endless 
problems for these countries' agrarian communities.
  I do not want to keep talking about this terrible disaster and its 
effects all day. I think that it is, it is really important and it is 
certainly commendable that my own constituents who are Belarusan 
Americans continue to make the point that we must address the problem 
of radiation in the aftermath of the Chernobyl explosion. They continue 
to raise money for the victims. They continue to be concerned about the 
victims and help them with medical supplies and other needs. That 
effort needs to continue. This country certainly, both on a government 
and on a nonprofit private basis, needs to continue to help the victims 
and their children.

  I also wanted to point out today, though, just as we must continue 
our international efforts to assist Belarus in the aftermath of 
Chernobyl, we must show our staunch support for that nation's 
independence. Belarus does not receive much attention in the media. 
Many of, most Americans probably, maybe not, maybe they do not even 
know where it is. But a recent New York Times editorial underscores the 
imminent dangers posed by the President of Belarus, Mr. Aleksandr 
Lukashenka.
  Shortly after Belarus freed itself from the oppressive clutches of 
the Soviet Union, this newly independent nation began its transition to 
a stable democracy. This 5-year political and economic progress may 
come to an abrupt halt if we do not press the current President to 
change his ways. President Lukashenka has actually proposed the 
reintegration of Belarus with Russia.
  In response to this new reintegration plan, 15,000 members of the 
Belarusan Popular Front marched in opposition to the threat of 
reintegration. These marchers fear that President Lukashenka will in 
fact relinquish Belarus' current democratic sovereignty.
  I just wanted to read, if I could, some sections of the New York 
Times editorial that was dated August 31 of this year that is entitled 
``The Tyrant of Belarus.'' It talks about the undemocratic manner in 
which President Lukashenka is conducting his leadership in the country.
  Last year Interior Ministry troops broke up a parliamentary protest 
against the President's leadership and bludgeoned 18 lawmakers. Imagine 
for those of us who are Members of the House of Representatives and who 
really do not have to even fear, I do not think in most cases, the 
possibility of being attacked, in this case the executive of the 
country actually came into the parliament building and was attacking 
lawmakers.
  This President has thrown political opponents in jail, closed 
independent newspapers and reimposed Soviet era restrictions on travel 
abroad. Fearing imprisonment or worse in this new police state, two 
opposition political leaders recently asked for political asylum in the 
United States and Washington promptly granted the request to ensure the 
safety of the two men.
  I am not sure I am pronouncing it properly, but they are Zenon 
Paznyak and Sergei Nayumchik. Essentially, I am proud of the fact that 
the United States did grant them asylum. Mr. Lukashenka is also rolling 
back many of the economic reforms initiated in the first months of 
Belarusan independence. He has frozen the Government's privatization 
program and slapped banks with strict state controls threatening to 
nationalize many of them. These measures can only further destabilize 
an economy that shrank 10 percent last year and has left many 
Belarusans impoverished. The debt relief and economic bailout Mr. 
Lukashenko hopes to get from Russia are not likely to materialize, and 
alarmed by developments, the International Monetary Fund has sensibly 
delayed a $300 million loan.
  Just one more section from the New York Times article editorial. They 
say:

       It may be too much to expect Boris Yeltsin and his 
     colleagues in the Kremlin to press Mr. Lukashenka to change 
     his ways, but the United States and democratic nations of 
     Europe should make their concern plain to him. The rising of 
     a new dictatorship in the heart of eastern Europe must not be 
     ignored.

  We certainly do not intend to ignore it, and it is one of the reasons 
that I am here today pointing it out. As a Congressman representing a 
large Belarusan-American community and a supporter of those members of 
the Popular Front, I strongly believe that we must act to prevent this 
new union of Russia and Belarus. We cannot allow a new autocratic 
regime to rise up in the midst of Eastern Europe's struggle toward 
democracy.
  I recently introduced House Concurrent Resolution 163, which supports 
the newly independent and democratic Belarus for which generations of 
Belarusan patriots fought and died. This resolution urges Members of 
Congress to unanimously call upon the entire population of Belarus and 
all Belarusans throughout the world to defend statehood and democracy 
of Belarus, help sustain the country's Constitution, prevent the loss 
of its hard won nationhood and encourage its chance to survive as an 
equal and full-fledged member State among the sovereign nations of the 
world.
  I promise to continue to support Belarus in its advancement toward 
stability and democracy, not the turn that its current president has 
taken us.


                             education cuts

  Mr. Speaker, with that, I will end my discussion of Belarus and the 
concerns that I have expressed and turn to the other issue that I would 
like to discuss and I believe we have some of my colleagues that will 
be joining us later. That is the issue of education cuts and the impact 
of the Dole economic plan on education, on Federal education policy.
  If I could just take a minute, Mr. Speaker, and point out that 
earlier this

[[Page H10658]]

week, we received another indication of not only Mr. Dole but also the 
Republican leadership's view of Federal education programs.
  On Tuesday the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, denounced 
congressional Democrats for their push to restore $3.1 billion in 
education and job training funding, saying ``I cannot, as leader of the 
majority, allow the minority to throw out their political garbage one 
after the other and expect our people to just bat it down repeatedly 
with votes.''
  Mimicking the process which characterized last year's budget debate 
when extremists shut down the Federal Government two times, Republican 
leaders are now backtracking from Senator Lott's statements and 
reportedly are considering a watered down version of the Democrats 
education agenda.
  My point, Mr. Speaker, is that education should be a priority for 
this Congress and for the Federal Government, if we are going to talk 
about our future as a country and the future of our citizens, education 
and the role of Federal education is very important, the role of the 
Federal Government and our ability to influence and help States and 
local governments at the secondary school level and also our ability to 
help those who would like to go on to college or to university for 
either undergraduate or graduate degrees. Senator Lott's statement 
indicates that when it comes to the Republican leadership on education, 
the old adage about teaching old dogs new tricks is true. It simply 
cannot be done.
  They essentially tell the American people that they understand how 
important education is and they rail against the Democrats for accusing 
them of not wanting all Americans to be educated, but then they push 
plans to gut education programs.
  I only have to reflect back on what has happened over the last 2 
years to give an indication of how the Republican leadership has 
deprioritized education in this Congress. We can even really skip over 
the cuts of 1995 and just talk about the current year 1996.
  In the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution that would essentially take 
effect October of this year, 1996, funding for education and training 
programs is essentially frozen below the previous year's fiscal year 
levels for 6 years. So what we have is essentially that when adjusted 
for inflation, we have a 21-percent reduction in Federal funding for 
education over the next 6 years, by the year 2002, providing no 
assistance for helping schools meet projected enrollment increases of 
12 percent over the next decade. So what the Republican leadership is 
saying to us is, even though they understand that there are going to be 
more students, there is going to be a larger enrollment, that they are 
going to freeze funding for education programs.
  In other words, the Republican plan is basically to provide less as 
the demand for education assistance increases around the country. In 
many school districts, such as New York City, where the school year 
opened with closets doubling as classrooms due to a lack of space, 
there is already immense suffering from skyrocketing enrollments.
  It is not the time to cut back on education funding or even freeze 
funding at previous fiscal year levels. The House-passed fiscal year 
1997 education appropriations bill includes cuts spanning the entire 
spectrum of Federal education programs from preschool students trying 
to get a jump on life through Head Start to the high school student 
looking for some assistance to get to college.
  Under the bill, funding for title I supplemental education services 
would be frozen, denying assistance to 150,000 fewer children than in 
fiscal year 1996, simply because the same services will cost more in 
1997. The Goals 2000 education reform program, which President Clinton 
has talked about and basically introduced, would be eliminated, denying 
reform grants to 8,500 schools serving 4.5 million children across the 
country.
  At the same time the Republicans attacked the President on the issue 
of drug abuse, and we have heard that repeatedly today, they continue 
to push an education bill that cuts the safe and drug free schools 
program by $25 million, weakening our ability to educate our children 
in safer, drug free environments.
  I am sick and tired of hearing my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle talk about funding for drug abuse and then come in here and cut 
the very programs that would prevent drug abuse, particularly on behalf 
of the young people.

  With respect to higher education, the Republican bill allows for a 
mere 1.2-percent increase in the maximum Pell grants award compared to 
the administration's proposed 9.3-percent increase. Federal 
contributions for Perkins loans would be eliminated, thereby denying 
low-interest loans to 96,000 students in the coming year.
  These are the very programs that allow students who cannot afford to 
go on to higher education, Pell grants, Perkins loans, and also the 
AmeriCorps Program. The AmeriCorps Program was a program that was 
proposed and enacted into law under President Clinton that basically 
allows students to do volunteer service in the community, and that 
service is used to pay back their loans. It is a new source of funding 
to pay for higher education. But the AmeriCorps Program would be 
terminated under the Republican appropriations bill. Through the back 
door the GOP would realize its long desired dream of effectively ending 
the Direct Loan Program by reducing the funds to administer it. The 
Direct Loan Program is another innovative program that instead of going 
through lenders, banks, to get a student loan, the university 
administers the loan program directly. It allows for more students at 
various colleges and universities to get loans, basically expanding the 
amount of loans that are available because you do not have to use the 
middle person. Again, they are trying to reduce that, reducing the 
funds to administer. That would mean that a lot of colleges and 
universities simply would not be able to have the direct loan programs.
  These programs that I mentioned, the ones that give our youngest 
children an early start on life, that teach our disadvantaged students 
how to read and write and solve mathematical problems, that keep drugs 
out of our schools, that expand access to higher education and that 
send our children to college, are the ones that Republicans would have 
you believe are, to use the words of the Senate majority leader, 
``political garbage.''
  I obviously could not disagree more with that statement. They are not 
political garbage. It is important that the funding be increased for 
those programs in this year's appropriations bill, and it is important 
that over the long term, that we expand educational opportunity through 
student loans and the rest of these devices.
  I just wanted to say a little bit about what the Republicans have 
been trying to do since they controlled Congress. On the other hand, we 
see the President and congressional Democrats coming up with new ideas 
to try to expand educational opportunity and provide good funding and 
new innovative programs to expand educational opportunities.

                              {time}  1645

  Just to give you an example of that, and I have talked about it 
before on the floor, in July the administration announced a school 
construction initiative to improve the physical infrastructure, the 
actual buildings in which our children are taught over the next 5 
years. Last month the President announced the America Reads challenge, 
which proposes to make every child in the country literate by the third 
grade. And then the congressional Democrats have the Families First 
agenda that basically provides American families a $10,000 tax 
deduction for college and job training, and we have also proposed to 
provide a $1,500 tax credit for the first 2 years of college for 
students who work hard, keep a B average and basically stay off drugs.
  What we are doing as Democrats essentially is trying to see how we 
can come up with innovative ways, whether it is through the Tax Code, 
whether it is through loan programs, whether it is through grant 
programs, to try to expand educational opportunity, and I think it is 
quite clear that there is a major contrast between the President and 
Mr. Dole on this issue.
  I see that one of my colleagues has joined us, Mr. Hinchey from New 
York, and I would be glad to yield to him at this time.

[[Page H10659]]

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the remarks that the 
gentleman was making about education and the need for improving the 
quality of our education here in United States, and actually that is an 
ongoing process. Improving the quality of education is something that 
has been happening here since the very beginning, and it is an 
evolutionary process and will continue to be so. We will never be at a 
condition when we have done everything perfectly with regard to 
education, but the fact of the matter is that in this particular 
Congress, over the course of most of the last 2 years we have seen a 
compilation, frankly, of what can only be called a shameful record on 
the issue of education.
  Just for example, last year the congressional leadership here in this 
House produced a budget resolution that called for the largest cuts in 
Federal funding for education and job training that we have ever seen 
in the Nation's history. Also, that same budget resolution attempted to 
sharply limit access to student loans, making it much more difficult 
and in some cases, many cases, frankly would have made it impossible 
for young people to get a college education.
  The Federal Government shut down in part last winter because the 
majority party here insisted on cutting elementary and secondary 
education programs by $3.3 billion, and they did that in order to 
finance a tax cut for the wealthy. The Government shut down because the 
President said no to that. The President said that it would be a 
shocking retreat from our education responsibilities to cut back on the 
Federal funding of education by $3.3 billion. Not only would that make 
education more difficult and less meaningful and less accessible to 
millions of American children, but it would also force up local real 
property taxes around the country.
  In New York and in New Jersey education is financed in large part, 
frankly too much, by the real property tax, and whenever the Federal 
Government cuts back on its funding, its contributions to elementary 
and secondary education, the result is that education suffers but also 
real property taxpayers, senior citizens on fixed incomes, end up 
paying more that they cannot afford. So it is really a transfer of 
taxing obligation from the Federal Government to the local government, 
from the broad-based Federal taxes which are much fairer.

  I mean, no one likes taxes. Taxes are never popular. But at least the 
taxes levied by the Federal Government are in almost every instance 
broad-based, progressive and much fairer than local real property 
taxes. And so when you have this transfer of obligation for funding 
from the Federal Government to the local government, you also have a 
shift in taxing obligation, and you shift the cost of education from 
the broad-based, more progressive Federal taxes to the more narrowly 
based, more regressive local real property taxes.
  That is another aspect of this budget resolution that the President 
vetoed and the majority here insisted upon for week after week. 
Ultimately they lost because the President would not give in to them, 
but they attempted to blackmail the minority here in this House, they 
attempted to blackmail the President into signing those terrible budget 
bills which would have done the things that we are talking about here.
  So that is part of the record here. And then, furthermore, still 
ignoring that quality education is a top priority for America's 
parents, Congress passed a budget resolution in 1996 that will result 
in a real cut in educational services all across the country by 20 
percent over the next 6 years.
  Now that is the attitude that this majority has in this House on 
education. That is the record, and I think it is a shameful one. The 
House leadership has turned the 3 R's of education, which are reading, 
writing, and arithmetic, into retraction, reduction, and retreat. That 
is what they would do with the educational system here in our country. 
Fortunately, we were able to prevent them from doing it by the 
President's veto and our ability to sustain that veto. So by putting a 
freeze on Federal education spending, we would be denying our children 
opportunities to succeed in the workplace.
  Now supporters of the fiscal 1997 budget resolution and the House-
passed appropriations bill are ignoring the realities of education 
today, and what are those realities? First of all, enrollment in 
elementary and secondary schools will grow by 7 million students 
between 1993 and the year 2005. So the burden on elementary and 
secondary schools is not going to decline, it is going to increase. We 
are going to have more students in school, and we need to educate them. 
That is a basic responsibility of any society, to educate the next 
generation. This government, this majority in this House, wants to wash 
its hands of that responsibility completely and pass it on to somebody 
else.
  What else? United States schools need right now $112 billion to 
repair or upgrade dangerous facilities. That is not to make the schools 
shining and perfect and lovely, as we all might want them to be. That 
$112 billion is the cost of repairing facilities so that they would no 
longer be dangerous.
  Our young people face a job market that is more competitive, more 
technologically advanced than ever before. We should be preparing our 
children to meet these challenges, instead of removing critical funding 
from our school system and slashing student loans.
  The Senate has one last chance to keep the doors of educational 
opportunity open for our children and maintain our investment in the 
future. Follow the lead of Senate Democrats and restore $3.1 billion in 
education and job training funding to the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill. That is what you support, that is what I support, 
that is what most of us in our party in this House support, and that is 
what I think we need to do.

  I call on all of the people in this House to break with the extreme 
agenda of the leadership here and listen to what American families are 
saying. Education is a top priority in households across the country, 
and it should be a top priority here in Washington. We are doing 
precisely the wrong thing by reducing funding for education, if that is 
what they succeed in doing. They would be doing exactly the opposite of 
what we ought to be doing. We ought to be promoting the best quality 
educational system that we can afford. We should be ensuring that every 
child has access to good quality education from Head Start through 
college and on to graduate education, if they have the ability and the 
interest to do so. Advanced degrees are going to be critically more 
important in the future.
  My 9-year-old daughter will be engaging in various kinds of 
activities in whatever professional pursuit she follows, things that we 
can hardly imagine today, because of the technological advancements 
that we are experiencing. We are moving into an era that is less and 
less dependent on natural resource industries and more and more 
dependent upon intellectual resource industries. We need the next 
generation to be highly educated and well trained and sophisticated in 
their approach to the job market and the marketplace, and we have a 
responsibility now, those of us who are serving in these positions now 
have a responsibility, to ensure that they have those opportunities, 
and if we fail to meet that responsibility, then our country will be a 
much different place as we enter the 21st century.
  Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman for joining me and pointing out 
not only what we have seen in the last 2 years under this Republican 
leadership in Congress and the negative impact on education programs, 
but also how important it is for the future to make sure that education 
remains a priority for the Federal Government in Federal funding.
  And one of the reasons that I took to the floor this evening, and I 
know you did too, is because of our concern that if you look at Mr. 
Dole's economic plan, that it would force even further reductions in 
education spending and again deprioritize, if you will, education in 
terms of the Federal role.
  Just to give an indication of that, there was an independent analysis 
of Mr. Dole's economic plan by Business Week, the Concord Coalition and 
others, that showed that his risky plan would require 40-percent cuts 
in a broad range of domestic programs, including education, and what 
they are saying is that a 40-percent cut in education and training 
would mean 300,000

[[Page H10660]]

children could be denied Head Start preschool opportunities, 5,800 
local school districts could be denied safe and drug-free school 
services, 9.700 young people could be denied AmeriCorps national 
service opportunities and 1.5 million students could be denied Pell 
Grant scholarships.
  So what we would see, the very concerns that we have over what is 
happened the last 2 years with some of these important education 
programs, would only be magnified much more if Mr. Dole's economic plan 
was put into place, and I do not see how the Federal Government can 
essentially get out of the role of helping with education programs and 
leave that responsibility in terms of the funding to the States and the 
local governments, because, as you say, the end result would be that 
State and local taxes could simply increase, particularly local 
property taxes, because so many States, including my own State of New 
Jersey, rely primarily on local property taxes to pay for education 
programs, and if they do not get Federal help to supplement State help, 
they would just either have to cut back significantly or raise their 
local property taxes in order to pay for those same programs just to 
keep going, just to keep the existing programs going.

  Mr. HINCHEY. No question about it. I mean the interesting thing 
about--actually there are many interesting things about Mr. Dole's 
proposals--one of the interesting things about his proposal for an 
almost $550 billion tax cut comes about when people ask him how is he 
going to do that: How will you cut taxes by $550 billion? What are the 
programs specifically that you will cut?
  Well, he does not come up with specifics. He does not tell us what he 
is going to do. What he says is: ``Trust me, where there is a will, 
there is a way.''
  And I have heard Jack Kemp say that exactly that way: Where there is 
a will, there is a way. And Bob Dole has the will; I do not doubt that. 
I do not doubt that for one moment. I am convinced that Bob Dole has 
the will to cut Medicare so that it no longer is able to serve our 
elderly citizens' health care needs, to gut Medicaid so that people who 
need health care, around-the-clock supervision in nursing homes, people 
who are elderly, frail elderly, people with total disabilities will be 
thrown out on the street. I do not doubt that he has the will to do 
that.
  I do not doubt, either, that he has the will to cut education, 
because they have tried to do it. They have tried to cut education. We 
have seen them do it in this Congress here this year and last year. We 
have seen them try in every way they could. We stood in their way and 
prevented them from doing it, but they tried everything they could to 
cut education.
  One of the things about that that astounded me the most was when they 
tried to cut the Eisenhower Teacher Training Program. That has been 
around for a long time. I was a sailor, a white hat sailor on a tin can 
destroyer in the western Pacific sailing in the Straits of Taiwan when 
the Soviet Union launched something called sputnik. It was the first 
satellite ever launched. Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United 
States, and it was a wake-up call to the President and to this Congress 
back then in the late 1950's.

                              {time}  1700

  What they did was they decided that they needed to concentrate more 
on education, and particularly on education in mathematics and science, 
in physics. So the Eisenhower education program was started to do a 
very good and very important thing. That was to ensure the best quality 
teachers in our high schools to teach young people in mathematics and 
algebra, in calculus, in trigonometry, in physics and basic physics and 
applied physics. and in other scientific pursuits, so that we could not 
only compete with the Soviet Union, the then Soviet Union, but surpass 
them.
  As a matter of fact, that program was successful, because we did 
precisely that. We went on not only to catch up to the Soviets in the 
space program, but to go far beyond them, surpass them by leaps and 
bounds. Now the situation is that we are cooperating with them in space 
today.
  But that cooperation would never have come about if the initiative 
had been left to them. That cooperation has come about only because we 
surpassed them, because we were better than they were. We then invited 
them to participate with us, as this very generous Nation had done many 
times in the past with other people.
  But now this Congress wants to eliminate even the Eisenhower 
education program. That has been a target on their cuts. One of their 
Presidents, one of their heroes, one of the people that the American 
people elected who served us well for 8 years in the Presidency in the 
decade of the 1950's and established this very foresightful, 
meaningful, important and successful educational program, they want to 
cut that as well. That is ow far they will go. It is astonishing, I 
think.
  Mr. PALLONE. The amazing thing about it, too, is that it is not that 
the Democrats do not want to see tax cuts. Essentially, the difference 
is that we are talking about targeted tax cuts, or tax credits that 
would actually improve education, in other words; and I know the 
gentleman shares my feeling. We feel that if there are going to be tax 
cuts or there are going to be tax credits, they should be used in a 
very targeted way to help, to help education, to help with 
environmental concerns, and that what we do not want to see is just tax 
breaks that primarily go to wealthy individuals and do not help the 
average person.
  When I was talking about these two tax cuts, the Hope scholarship for 
the first 2 years of college that the President has proposed, $1,500 
for your first 2 years, and the $10,000 tuition education tax 
deduction, when I talked to my constituents about those kinds of tax 
breaks, they think they are great, because they know that paying for 
higher education is very difficult. They see that as a way of the 
Federal Government actually using the Tax Code, if you will, to help 
improve education and educational opportunities.

  Democrats would like to see tax cuts or tax initiatives that actually 
give a break to individuals, but we want to use them in ways that are 
going to help our constituents, and not just throw money toward the 
large corporations or wealthy Americans.
  Mr. HINCHEY. That is exactly right. It is the kind of thing we 
support. I think that is intelligent. I think it is intelligent to 
provide tax support for people who want to provide their children an 
education to be able to deduct those costs.
  The cost of a college education, I think, makes eminently good sense, 
obviously, for the young person in that family, for the family itself, 
but also, very importantly, for the entire country, because our society 
benefits every time we graduate another person from college, another 
person with an advanced degree. That person goes out, applies that 
learning, and it is a synergistic effect.
  It is a situation where all of this education coming together, 
working out there, higher and better education all the time, creates a 
circumstance where the whole is more than the sum of the parts. It is a 
very good investment, indeed.
  But these guys here, the Gingrich crowd in this House, they have 
never seen a problem that a tax cut for a millionaire would not solve. 
They have never seen a problem that they do not want to throw a big tax 
cut out to the wealthiest people in the country. Their solution to 
every problem is, find the richest people you can in the country and 
cut their taxes, and that will solve your problem, because it is the 
people that they represent.
  They have turned their back on middle class America, they have turned 
their back on the working people of this country by trying to cut their 
health care and the health care for their parents and grandparents, 
they have turned their backs on them by trying to cut the educational 
opportunities for their children, but they never turn their backs on 
the millionaires. They are willing to cut taxes for them every 
opportunity they get.

  Mr. PALLONE. The amazing thing, too, if I could add, is that the 
President has been expanding these educational opportunity programs, 
you know, starting AmeriCorps, the National Service Program, moving to 
a direct lending program, increasing the amount of money for Pell 
grants, at the same time that he is reducing the deficit. The deficit, 
the actual deficit,

[[Page H10661]]

has actually been going down every year since he has been in office.
  The reason you can expand programs, I will use the direct student 
loan program as an example. I think we talked about it before, how you 
are actually eliminating the bank as the middle person, so the money, 
if you will, that will have gone to pay for the bank's administration 
of services now goes to the college or university directly to pay 
essentially for more students to get a loan. So you are actually saving 
the taxpayers money.
  You are eliminating the special-interest middle person, if you will, 
and the reason that the Republican leadership has been opposing that is 
because they get money from the special-interest bank or savings 
association, whatever it is, that actually is making that extra dollar; 
and, instead, you could abolish the middleman, save money for the 
taxpayers, probably millions or billions of dollars, and give more 
students direct loans.
  That is what is amazing to me, that you have seen this administration 
actually expand the programs and give more educational opportunities at 
less cost and bring the deficit down.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
leadership, and that of the gentleman from New York, and the work they 
have done on continuing to get education finally on the right track in 
this country.
  We as a nation have come to a consensus pretty much about the role of 
local, State and Federal Government in education. No one in this body, 
certainly on the Democratic side, but I think on the Republican side, 
too, thinks that the Federal Government should come in and take over 
the schools and run all the schools' programs. But we have come to 
a consensus in that local government, by and large, controls the 
schools.

  State government does much of the funding for education. But the 
Federal Government's role is very important and very precise. It is 
some support for Head Start, it is student loans, it is programs like 
drug-free schools. It is helping community colleges from time to time 
with Federal money. But it is limited.
  What we have done is, we have protected, tried to protect that 
consensus. The leader of the other body, Mr. Lott's comments were 
particularly amazing when he talked about education and job training as 
garbage amendments that Democrats want to put in bills. I do not quite 
understand what he meant, but I understand his attitude.
  His attitude is that programs like drug-free schools and programs to 
help community colleges, like Lorain County Community College in my 
district, which is really the jewel of our county in terms of training 
a lot of people that are not just in their teens but in their twenties 
and thirties, going back, working full-time, going back to school and 
preparing for the future. That is so important.
  We are finally, with the President's leadership and people like the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, and the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Hinchey, in this House, aiming education in the right 
direction: giving tax breaks to people for college tuition, so middle 
class families can send their kids on to school; providing student 
loans and strengthening the direct loan program, as you suggested, Mr. 
Pallone, so the middleman is cut out, and we can give those loans 
directly and not see banks and others basically take their cut off the 
top of these student loan programs or of these student loans.
  One of the things that the President said, I think that makes the 
most sense with the Families First agenda and in the President's 
agenda, in the President's plan, is a 2-year college scholarship for 
students who maintain a B average.
  In Elyria, OH, in my district, there is Lorain County Community 
College. That opportunity for students has given Lorain County the 
highest rate of 2-year associate degrees of any county, I believe, in 
all of Ohio. It has prepared people for all kinds of good employment, 
given people all kinds of opportunity.
  I also know people that are going to LC, to Lorain County Community 
College, that have really struggled, because they have not been able to 
put together the money and raise their children while they are working. 
They have done all they could do to come up with money to go to school. 
They sometimes have been in and out of Lorain Community College and not 
been able to continue their education, uninterrupted.
  The President's program will make sure that we are on the right track 
to be able to do that, so Lorain County Community College can continue 
to provide the sort of opportunities to get people, to get them into 
the middle class, to allow them to continue to stay in the middle class 
when their job is downsized and their company cuts back, as is 
happening all over this country.
  For us to follow Mr. Lott, the Republican leader of the other body, 
his idea to just junk some of these education programs and this job 
training, makes no sense. If we are going to compete internationally, 
if we are going to compete around the globe, we cannot cut education. 
We cannot end the student loan program. We cannot cut out the Pell 
grants. We cannot cut out the drug-free school programs and defund Head 
Start and some of these programs that have really simply provided an 
opportunity for America's middle class and poor kids.
  There is nothing more important that government can do than provide 
opportunity, nothing. The best programs that come out of this 
institution, the best direction of government, is to help people have 
opportunity. Lorain County Community College has done that in Elyria, 
OH. All kinds of community colleges and other schools around the 
country have done that.
  We have no business ever restricting opportunity. We should work 
toward expanding opportunity with student loans and tax breaks for 
parents in middle-class families to send their kids on to school, 
whether it is a 4-year university or a community college. It just does 
not make sense to do anything otherwise.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. The amazing thing about it is that 
we continue to hear statements during this presidential campaign from 
Mr. Dole saying how he is going to be the education President, or that 
he is going to prioritize education.
  Yet we know from his own record that he has consistently voted 
against expanding education programs and that the President, President 
Clinton, in the last 4 years has probably done more to expand 
educational opportunities, particularly at the higher education level, 
college and for graduate programs, than anybody else.
  I just saw it myself, but twice he came to my district in the last 3 
years or so and talked about, he was at Rutgers University on both 
occasions, and talked about the National Direct Student Loan Program, 
the AmeriCorps Program. I have actually witnessed students that are 
involved in these programs, and they are just very helpful. They are 
not only helpful in terms of helping the students, but they also help 
the community.
  For example, we have AmeriCorps students in some of the secondary 
schools that are basically supplementing the programs, the normal 
education program students get in school; you know, basically providing 
them with extra instruction after school or whatever. We have 
AmeriCorps students that have been working on clean water projects, 
basically testing the water in the Raritan River and looking for ways 
to try to do better, further cleanup.
  So that program, just as an example, is one where students get money 
for college or pay back their loan. They are working in the community, 
so they build up a community spirit. At the same time, they are 
actually accomplishing something that helps people.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, the gentleman said this benefits the community at large. There 
are about 40 million Americans today who have gotten some student loan 
or grant assistance from the Federal Government to further their 
educations. Some 40 million Americans have gotten this, whether it is 
the GI bill, Perkins, or some other program, direct loan, through the 
Federal Government, sponsored by the Federal Government, whatever.

[[Page H10662]]

  Think, if the Government had not been involved in any of these, the 
GI bill or the student loans of any kind, or Perkins or whatever, think 
how many of those 40 million would not be able to contribute to the 
community the way they are doing. They are scientists, teachers, 
nurses, people who are working as electricians, people doing all kinds 
of things to make this society a better place.
  If we had not provided those loans from the 1940's on, or those 
grants from the 1940's on, where would we be as a society? For us, all 
in the name, as Mr. Hinchey said, in order to give tax breaks to the 
richest people in those countries, the only way to pay for those tax 
breaks, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] has said on the 
floor, would be to cut Medicare, cut student loans. It is 
unconscionable.
  To give tax breaks to the tune of $500 billion, as Mr. Dole is 
suggesting, or the $300 billion that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] has suggested, and tried to get through this House time after 
time after time, and actually shut down the government over, to give 
those tax breaks to the wealthy, the only way to pay for it is cuts in 
Medicare and student loans.
  Why would we sacrifice potentially tens of millions of students who 
could benefit in the next decade or so, who could benefit from student 
loans, direct student loans, and various kinds of Federal grants and 
loans, why would we sacrifice them so we could give a tax break, mostly 
to people who do not need it, people making $250,000 to $300,000 a 
year?
  Also they could give this break and really restrict the opportunity 
that millions of Americans, middle-class Americans and poor kids, would 
have in the next decade or so.
  Mr. HINCHEY. There is an irony here also that should not be lost. 
There are a great many people in this Congress, including a great many 
who are advocating the abolition of student loans, or to make student 
loans more difficult, or the abolition of Pell grants, or to make Pell 
grants more difficult, or cutting of education in various ways, who 
themselves would not have had the opportunity for education if it had 
not been for the GI bill, say, for example, or Perkins, or a Pell 
grant, or something of that nature.
  There is something terribly ironic and difficult to understand about 
that, how people who are here by virtue of the fact that they had help 
from the public purse in some way, at some point in their life, to 
expand themselves, to expand their careers and expand their 
opportunities, now want to deny that to another generation.

                              {time}  1715

  I think that is terribly perverse at best. The example of student 
loans is just another one that I think just cries out for 
understanding. Where is the logic here, unless it is that you just want 
to provide a few extra dollars to some banker to make it more costly 
for a student to get an education, to make it more costly for the 
taxpayer to help provide educational opportunity for the next 
generation of Americans. And in denying that taxpayer the opportunity 
for a little lower taxes and denying the student the opportunity for 
education, you simply are just transferring that benefit to some banker 
who does not need it, by introducing some third party into the student 
loan process.
  I think that making the student loans direct was one of the simplest 
yet one of the most effective things that the President has done with 
regard to the availability of higher education. I applaud him for it. I 
think anybody who recognizes the value of that program does the same.
  Mr. PALLONE. I know from my own experience that there was no way that 
I would have been able to go to college or law school or graduate 
school without a combination of the student loan program, scholarships 
from the college or graduate school that I went to as well as the work 
study program. In fact, when the session began 2 years ago, the 
Republican leadership was also talking about either abolishing or 
cutting back significantly on the work study program. Again, how 
absurd.
  Mr. Speaker, here we have students working their way through college. 
You would think that would be the epitome of a type of program we would 
want to keep, a work study program, but they were talking about cutting 
back on that. Plus a lot of people will say to me, particularly if they 
go to a private school, they will say, I got a scholarship from the 
private school or from an individual that donated money to the private 
school. But the fact of the matter is that a large portion of the 
money, whether they are private or public institutions, given out in 
scholarships, in other words, when a student gets a scholarship from 
the university, be it private or public, a lot of that money is also 
coming from the Federal Government. So it is not just the Pell grants, 
the Perkins loans, or the student loans. Even the money that is coming 
directly in scholarships from the college oftentimes a lot of that is 
coming from the Federal Government as well.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It is so shortsighted to think about making cuts 
in education, whether it is the student loan, the drug free schools 
program that, while Senator Dole runs around the country talking about 
drugs and illegal drugs that we have got to deal with it, and he votes 
and leads the charge against with Mr. Gingrich, the leader of this 
House, to try to cut back on the drug free schools program, it is just 
so shortsighted.
  When you think of what, as a nation, are we going to do if we cut 
these kinds of programs, these kinds of opportunities for kids to go on 
to school, whether it is a 2-year school, a 2-year community college, 
or 4-year degree at a State university or whatever. Interestingly, one 
of the things, as Mr. Dole has gone around the country talking about 
his $550 billion tax break, which is going to make these education cuts 
even worse that Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Dole have already tried to pass 
through this institution that the President has vetoed, but as he has 
gone around the country talking about this $550 billion tax break, 
mostly for the wealthy, he has also promised group after group after 
group that he is not going to cut them.
  He has said to military groups, I am going to increase military 
spending. He says to veterans groups, I am not going to cut you. But 
the other day he said most interestingly, I am going to double the 
amount of money that the Federal Government spends on prisons. So he is 
going to keep increasing this, this, this, and this, and what is left 
to cut? The only thing left to cut unfortunately is Medicare, Medicaid, 
Social Security, student loans, environmental protection. That is about 
all that is left in all the things he has talked about because he has 
promised every other group he is not going to cut them.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to juxtapose cutting education, 
putting it next to increasing money on prisons. If we are going to cut 
education, we are going to have to build more prisons. If we are going 
to restrict opportunity for middle-class kids, for working class or 
poor kids, we just better start planning to spend more money on 
prisons, more money on alcohol abuse programs and drug abuse programs, 
and all of that if kids do not have the opportunity when they are 18 or 
22 years old when they finish school. Again, it is so shortsighted. To 
restrict kids' opportunity, to restrict people when they are 30 years 
old that are working in a job, and trying to go back to Lorain 
Community College or somewhere else and simply cannot scrape the money 
together, and the Government is not interested in helping. What are 
people going to do to stay in the middle class, to achieve middle-class 
status and lifestyles and stay in the middle class?
  To me, our country in all the opportunities we have provided with 
things like the GI bill are to build a strong middle class. If we are 
going to just throw up our hands as a government and say, sorry, no 
more, the Government is no longer on the side of helping to provide 
opportunity for young people, we are just going to give up, give tax 
breaks to the wealthy and forget about opportunity and forget about 
education, I wonder what is going to happen to this country. It is a 
scary thought.
  Mr. PALLONE. I agree. I know we do not have a lot of time left. I 
guess maybe we should wrap up at this point. I am just so glad that 
both of you came here and joined me to talk about this, because I know 
that Congressman Brown kept using the term educational

[[Page H10663]]

opportunity. I think that is really what it is all about. We are not 
talking about handouts here to people who do not want to learn. We are 
talking about providing an opportunity so that everyone in this country 
can get an education at the highest level that they want and that they 
deserve and that they are willing to work for. That is what it is all 
about.
  That is the promise, if you will, of America. If that promise is not 
there anymore, it makes it much more difficult for us to talk to our 
constituents or our children about equal opportunity. The equal 
opportunity just will not be there anymore. That is why I think it is 
really important that we continue to work toward that equal opportunity 
goal, particularly when it comes to education, which is so important 
for the future. I want to thank both of you for joining me.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take up a 
cause that is the No. 1 concern of millions of working parents and is 
an issue that the Republicans have called garbage. I am talking about 
the education of our children. I am talking about the future of our 
democracy and how we as a nation will take on the challenges of the 
21st century. Let's look at the record of the Gingrich Congress. In 
1995, the Republican Congress voted for the largest education cuts in 
history--slashing education programs by 15 percent or $3.6 billion. 
They voted to eliminate the funding for Goals 2000 School Reform which 
sought to raise the achievement levels of 44 million children. They 
voted to cut the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program by 57 percent--
denying 23 million students services that keep drugs and violence away 
from children and their schools. They voted to cut Head Start by $137 
million.
  All of these cuts were in the face of the largest school enrollment 
in the history of our Nation--this is the time of the baby-boom echo. 
these are the children of the baby-boom generation that Republicans 
want to face their future with less resources for their education.
  Finally, yesterday, the Republicans could no longer take the heat 
that they were shortchanging our Nation's schoolchildren and are now 
prepared to restore $2.3 billion of education cuts they took out of 
President Clinton's proposed spending for schools in fiscal year 1997. 
They now want to bury this issue and go home and try to forget about 
how they have done our children the worst disservice possible. How they 
want to forget that there are fewer teachers in the classrooms this 
fall because of what they did last year. They want to wash away their 
guilt when they see classrooms in school lunchrooms and even closets. 
We need to be increasing education funding, in light of growing school 
enrollments--not cutting. We need to invest more in our future and the 
future of our children.
  Still, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have had the audacity to call our 
efforts to increase spending for education political garbage. Well, is 
it political garbage for working parents to see Republicans cut 
valuable funding for basic reading and math skills, Head Start, summer 
jobs for kids, school-to-work initiatives and Pell grants for college 
students. It may be garbage to them, but it's the key to our future.
  So, don't be fooled by these 11th hour Republican conversions. 
Republicans can't go home now and undo the damage they have done to our 
schools. We have to keep up the pressure--Republicans can't be trusted 
with our children's education. This November, let's throw out the real 
garbage.

  Democrats have a real agenda for working families that helps them to 
prepare their children for the challenges of the 21st century. Our 
Families First Agenda offers a brighter path for the future education 
for our children. It offers a better chance for helping get our kids to 
college.
  With stagnating household incomes and the ever-increasing costs of a 
college education, American families are worried about how they are 
going to send their children to college. And what have the Republicans 
done to help? They have voted again and again over the last 2 years to 
slash student loan programs and to eliminate direct student loans. They 
have also voted to cut back on Pell grants and Perkins loans. All of 
this in the face of a fact that every working person knows--a college 
degree is a ticket to a higher income. It is a ticket to a better life 
and a life that is becoming more and more out of reach for greater 
numbers of people every year.
  Families First Agenda includes a HOPE Scholarship Program that 
President Clinton offered in June. It would provide all students with a 
$1,500 refundable tax credit for full time students who keep up their 
grades. The HOPE Scholarship Program tries to make 2 years of college 
as universally accessible as high school is today.
  This Democratic Families First educational initiative also includes a 
$10,000 tax deduction for education and training expenses. This 
deduction is up to $10,000 a year for each family. It would be 
available even for families that don't itemize their deductions. And 
this is in addition to the tax credit which is $1,500 for each student. 
It all adds up to help for families that want to see their children get 
a college education and have a better life.
  Mr. Speaker, education is the key that will unlock our potential for 
the country's future. We have to at least help our families put the key 
in the door. Congress should not go home without giving our children a 
chance at a better life. We need to provide for safe and drug free 
schools and for strong investments in education and training of 
America's young people and workers. That, Mr. Speaker is the right way 
to prepare our country to compete in the world economy of the 21st 
century.
  Mr. Speaker, we have finally gotten the Republicans to see the light. 
Quoting from the Washington Post of September 18, 1996:

 GOP Restores $2.3 Billion It Cut in Education Funds--Republicans Want 
                     To Avoid Preelection Gridlock

       Bombarded by Democratic charges that they were 
     shortchanging the country's schoolchildren, Senate 
     Republicans agreed to match President Clinton's proposed 
     spending for schools by restoring $2.3 billion that 
     Republicans had cut from education accounts for next year.
       The GOP concession on education spending came only minutes 
     before Democrats were prepared to offer a proposal to add 
     $3.1 billion for education and job training to an Interior 
     Department spending bill. Before they could offer their 
     proposal, Lott told reporters Republicans were prepared to 
     add back $2.3 billion for education alone.

                          ____________________