[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10943-S10945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, on Tuesday, the Republicans announced, 
with great fanfare, an education amendment that is a day late and $800 
million short. It restores $2.3 billion of $3.1 billion necessary to 
meet the President's request for fiscal year 1997. But this amendment 
is hardly motivated by concern for the students of America. It is an 
election-eve conversion, and the American people should not be fooled.
  As costs, student enrollments and college debts soar, the Republicans 
are offering ``education lite.'' The increase they offer falls well 
short of the funding needed just to keep pace with inflation and 
enrollment increases.
  Senator Lott himself admitted the amendment was designed to meet the 
political needs of the Republican Party, not the educational needs of 
American students. Senator Lott said on Tuesday, ``We can either get 
our brains beat out politically, or we can get in there and mix it up 
with them, and that's what we are going to do.''
  Republicans are running scared from the fact that the American people 
support education. Their change of heart is cynical and hypocritical, 
and it will not last past the November election.
  What Trent Lott gives with one hand, Newt Gingrich is already 
planning to take away with the other. The Republican leaders in the 
House are telling their rank and file not to get excited because they 
can rescind the money later. House Republican conference member John 
Boehner said, in appropriations --and Bob Livingstone agreed--that ``we 
can always have a rescissions bill in January.''
  Senator Lott and the Republicans are fleeing from their anti-
education record, but they better not look back, because if they do, 
the sight of all their cuts in education might turn them into pillars 
of salt.
  When the Dole-Gingrich Republican leadership took over in 1995, their 
education agenda was stark and severe: abolish the Department of 
Education and slash Federal support for schools and college students.
  From January 1995 to the present, Republicans have proposed education 
cuts every chance they have had: on rescission bills, on budget 
resolutions, on appropriations bills and continuing resolutions. When 
Democrats refused to let these devastating cuts pass, Republicans shut 
down the Government because they could not get their way.
  With the help of students and parents across the country, we turned 
back the worst of these anti-education funding measures for fiscal year 
1996.
  Republicans did not learn. In this year's budget resolution, they 
again propose to slash education, this time by 20 percent over the next 
6 years.
  The record of the past 2 years is clear. It is clear that Republicans 
are no friends of education, and it is equally clear that the American 
people do not want education cut. The current election-eve Republican 
``education lite'' amendment has no credibility. It is written in 
disappearing ink. Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, and their allies have an 
irresistible impulse to slash education to pay for tax breaks for the 
wealthy. And Democrats will not let that happen.
  Madam President, this chart illustrates clearly exactly where we are 
on the issue of education. The black line going back to 1995 is 
President Clinton's request. That line represents inflation plus 
expanded enrollment. We have expanded enrollment in the elementary and 
secondary schools, going up to 52 million or 53 million, and expanded 
enrollment as well in higher education. This particular line reflects 
the increase that is necessary to deal with the problems of inflation, 
expanded student population in the K-12 well as in higher education.
  This line here reflects what was actually the fiscal year 1995 level 
of funding in terms of constant dollars. This $600 million loss 
represents the figure that was effectively agreed to after the proposal 
by the Republicans of $1.7 billion in rescissions in 1995. Their 
proposal was to cut $1.7 billion. We were able to resist that, and the 
final figure that was set was $600 million in rescissions. These were 
moneys already going out to schools all across the country, K-12--also 
available, some of the funding, in terms of higher education 
appropriated in previous years. Their proposal reduced this by $1.7 
billion.
  We see that this $3.9 billion cut represents the House appropriations 
in 1995. The continuing resolution brought it back to $3.1 billion. 
Finally, just before the Government shutdown

[[Page S10944]]

that took place here, there was an add-on of $2.7 billion, and the 
negotiation which took place at that time brought us to $400 million 
less than level funding--in absolute dollars. There is a significant 
reduction here in terms of the real purchasing power in education. We 
see, once again, in this year's House appropriations, a cut of $1.5 
billion. The Senate cuts in appropriations are not as severe as in the 
House appropriations.
  The press asked us why we are bringing this up at this particular 
time. The fact is that the Senate Appropriations Committee met last 
week and finally resolved the dollar figure that was reached by that 
committee. Within a day, under the leadership of Senator Daschle, 
Senator Harkin, Senator Kerry, Senator Levin, Senator Wellstone, and 
others, we announced that we would be offering an amendment that would 
restore the $3.1 billion difference between the President's request and 
what was actually coming out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So 
we did that at the end of last week. We tried to offer the amendment 
earlier this week. We were denied that opportunity, and we were 
notified then that the Republicans had decided to an add-on of some 
$2.3 billion.
  Mr. President, of course, if they had made that add-on last week, for 
a good chunk of these education programs, we would not have this kind 
of difference. So I say election year conversion because what a 
difference a week makes. What a difference a week makes in terms of the 
Republican position.
  The fact of the matter is, on each and every occasion since 1995, on 
any budget, any appropriation, any reconciliation, any continuing 
resolution, any time the issue of funding for education has been out 
there, there has been a reduction.
  I want to take notice here, Madam President, and say that there have 
been some notable exceptions among our Republican friends. I 
acknowledge the Senator from Maine, who has placed a high priority in 
education, and Senator Hatfield, and a few others. But this chart 
represents the ongoing and continuing record that has taken place.
  Basically, we are talking about the rescissions of 1995, where it was 
$1.7 billion. In the 7-year budget resolution of 1996, they proposed a 
Federal slash of one-third over 7 years in Federal investment in 
education. The deep cuts came in college aid, $10.6 billion in student 
loan cuts, and a freeze on Pell grants, which reduces their value by 40 
percent, or effectively eliminates grants to 1 million students. You 
can have it either way. That is the effect of their recommendation in 
terms of funding the Pell grant. Cutbacks in other education--and this 
is in 1996--such as 350,000 preschool children who would lose Head 
Start, 2 million children who would lose title I, reading and math, and 
programs to keep schools safe and drug-free would be cut back for 39 
million students. That was in 1996.
  On the budget reconciliation, listen to what was recommended. The 
Republican majority carried out of our Labor Committee a 2-percent 
student loan tax on every college and university in the country. Do we 
understand that? A 2-percent tax on every college. That 2-percent tax 
would be on the amount of scholarship aid and assistance. So when you 
take a school like Northeastern University, 80 percent of the kids that 
go there, their parents never have completed college; 85 percent are 
working 25 hours a week or more. These are individuals who are hungry, 
they are gifted, but they don't have great resources and they are 
trying to make it to enhance their own opportunities for advancement in 
our society. This 2-percent tax would have particularly hit Boston 
University by $750,000 to $800,000 a year, which meant anywhere from 18 
to 20 students' scholarship help that the university would not have 
been able to provide. That was one aspect. They raised interest rates 
on the Plus Loan. The Plus Loans are basically for middle-income, 
working families. It gives them additional opportunity at a somewhat 
lower rate for educational loans to supplement their children who are 
in college. The Republicans eliminated the interest-free grace period 
for students beginning to repay after graduation. We now have a 6-month 
period.

  The fact remains that that 6 months is a key period for the student 
to get a decent job. They wanted to eliminate it and start repayment at 
the time of graduation, which would have put additional pressure on the 
students to become employed because they would have had to start 
repaying their debt. If you ask Secretary Riley what is the impact of 
that grace period on students repaying their debt, his testimony, and 
all the testimony, is that if you give them a grace period, they have 
more time to get a good job, one that they want to stay with and one 
where they will have an enhanced opportunity for repayment.
  So those are some of the areas of the cuts, as well as cutting back 
and putting a cap of 10 percent on the direct loan program. That direct 
loan program, which moved us up toward a division of total student aid 
so that we would have competition between the guarantee and direct loan 
programs, was agreed to by Republicans and Democrats in the previous 
Congress. Nonetheless, this was closed down, and it would only be 10 
percent.
  The amendment that was offered here on the floor of the U.S. Senate 
to permit each college to make its own judgment whether it wanted to go 
to direct loan or guaranteed loan was overwhelmingly defeated by those 
who want to continue the guaranteed loan program, which will mean that 
$127 billion will go through the guaranteed agencies over a 6- to 7-
year period. It means anywhere from $7 to $10 billion in profits to 
those agencies, which is basically money that is coming out of the 
pockets and pocketbooks of working families.
  The 1996 appropriations bill is cutting education 16 percent. It 
terminated Perkins loans and student initiative grants for the neediest 
students. It raised the Pell minimum grant to $600. The effect of that 
is that you eliminate awards to 175,000 low-income students. The bill 
cuts back title I by $1.1 billion to deny reading and math to over a 
million children. It cuts back Head Start by $140 million, denying 
preschool to 48,000 children.
  Then we come to the continuing resolution of January 26, 1996. That 
cut education by $3.1 billion from 1995 levels, a 13-percent cut.
  The final omnibus resolution reduced education $400 million, after 
the Senate adopted the Specter-Harkin amendment, which restored $2.7 
billion in education. That amendment passed 84 to 16.
  So during this national debate about how there is a distortion and 
misrepresentation about who is for education, even when we had the 
principal instrument to recover and restore some of that education, 
supported at that time by a number of Republicans--there were 16 
Republican Members of the Senate who said ``no.''
  Now, a 6-year budget resolution, which was passed in May and June 
1996, cuts Pell grants by $6.2 billion over 6 years. It cuts work study 
for 800,000 students. It cuts title I for over 300,000 children. The 
list goes on.
  The final point I make, Mr. President--and I will include this 
analysis as part of the Record--is that the Republican platform, in 
August, said, ``We will abolish the Department of Education.''
  Maybe there have to be adjustments in some of the agencies of 
Government. But I would suggest that most American families want to 
have the Secretary of Education at the President's elbow every single 
day of the year saying, ``What about the education of the children of 
this country? What are we going to do about that?''
  Money can't solve all of the problems. But what changes are necessary 
to make academic achievement and accomplishment, enhanced standards, 
and improved quality education available? I think most Americans would 
say of all the agencies of Government, certainly you need Defense, 
certainly you need the Secretary of State and maybe the Treasury. But I 
tell you. The Secretary of Education is right up there among American 
priorities.
  So why do the Republicans want to abolish the Department of 
Education, and now in the final hours come back and say, ``Oh, well, we 
are really for education--we are the education Congress?'' It is 
something that I have difficulty understanding.
  Earlier in the day we were asked, ``What about the Republicans' 
proposal, the Lott amendment?'' I just

[[Page S10945]]

point out very briefly that this amendment does not meet critical 
needs--no increase in the Head Start Program, and no increase in 
teacher training.
  We just had the Carnegie Commission report a week ago that one of the 
principal deficiencies in our educational system is that we are not 
getting enough teachers that are well trained, nor are teachers getting 
enhanced training. We have tried to restore the administration's 
request in this area. The Republicans offer no additional funding for 
teacher training; no money for the TRIO Program, which is academic 
support for disadvantaged students; and no money for School to Work. 
These are crucial programs. Twenty years ago, if you graduated from 
high school you were making 65 or 70 percent of what a college graduate 
was making. That percentage has dropped to about 55 percent--the 
growing income gap that is taking place.
  We tried with School to Work to move three out of four kids that do 
not go on to college into the private sector. It has been strongly 
supported by Republicans in a number of States.
  Again, I refer to the distinguished Governor of Maine, the husband of 
our chair, who is one of the very innovative Governors in moving toward 
the School to Work Program, and other Republican Governors and 
Democratic Governors as well.
  There is no money for summer jobs, even though about 40 percent of 
all the summer job programs have academic provisions. There were funds 
in terms of other education programs. I had hoped that we would take 
those increases and put them in for increases to the President's 
request here on the floor of the Senate, or in the continuing 
resolution. We would get a positive response--an overwhelming 
response--in favor of those measures.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________