[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10945-S10947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           FUNDING EDUCATION

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I am here to answer some of the 
statements made by the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Labor 
and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kennedy. Unfortunately, I did 
not hear all of the comments but some that I heard made by Senator 
Kennedy regarding education need to be answered.
  It just is not the case that education has been slashed by 
Republicans over the last 6 to 8 years, and I really find it very 
disappointing that somehow this keeps coming up. It is easy to make a 
statement saying education has been slashed and decimated by 
Republicans without any real understanding of the programs under 
discussion, what has been debated and what resolutions have been made 
because, actually, education budgets have continued to climb.
  I think nearly all of us at least would acknowledge that money alone 
is not the answer to quality education. It certainly has been important 
for us to have a support system when we are asked to help with special 
education moneys, moneys for disadvantaged students, moneys for 
disabled students, for the student loan program. But money alone is not 
the answer.
  We are now spending more than $25 billion in our budget for 
education, and there has to be some understanding of what it is all 
about. For one thing, we have dramatically increased money for Head 
Start programs, which are preschool programs for those young children 
who need most to have that assistance.
  At the time we worked on the legislation to increase Head Start 
funding, we also incorporated changes in the program which were 
designed to enhance the quality of delivery of Head Start programs. 
Some States have outstanding Head Start programs. Other States have not 
pulled together the network that I think is necessary for quality 
preschool education. But that money has been increased.
  As for student loans, I think it is exceptionally misleading to claim 
that the student loan program has been decimated. For one thing, all 
eligible students applying for a student loan receive a student loan. 
In 1993, the volume of student loans was $16.1 billion; 3 years later, 
it is $26.6 billion. Students are not being denied student loans.
  The Pell grant program and the other grant and work-study programs 
have not been appropriated to the level that has been authorized, and 
that has always been a concern. But it is also a fact that funding for 
those programs has not been reduced. Whether it has grown to the level 
it should grow perhaps should be the question. I think it is very 
important for us to debate these issues in the context of understanding 
what is, and is not, occurring in education.
  We have figures which show, as I pointed out earlier, that we are 
increasing, and have continued to increase every year, the budget for 
our education programs. Whether it should be increased more or less has 
been a subject of debate.
  I particularly would like to address the student loan program because 
the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, attacked the efforts to 
cut the student loan program. When we debated whether to have direct 
lending for student loans, the intent was to help if students wanted to 
get their student loan money immediately when they registered for 
postsecondary education. It did not in any way mean a student was going 
to pay less on their student loan, and in fact, it was through 
Republican initiatives in trying to reduce some of the bureaucracy and 
some of the requirements on the student loan that did produce what 
savings could be achieved for students.
  Direct lending, as such, in no way changed the amount of funding that 
is available to students. This has been, I think, poorly understood. 
Somehow it has been portrayed as a choice between supposedly greedy 
banks or the Federal Government that would handle student loans. We 
missed completely, I think, the part of the debate regarding who should 
be responsible for cutting the checks for the student loan program, who 
can do it the best, and who should bear the responsibility for those 
loans and for payments that have not been collected.
  I, myself, thought it was something we should go somewhat slowly on, 
so that we could understand the effects of the Federal Government 
totally handling the student loan program, or whether we should 
continue to let it also be an initiative in which the banks and the 
student lending guaranty agencies could be involved, believing they 
were going to be better able to collect on the loans than the Federal 
Government. I believe it is something we can and should continue to 
debate. But that program has not been decimated by efforts of 
Republicans to somehow cut student loans.
  I think it is interesting that, in the first half of President 
Clinton's administration, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, 
actual spending for education programs fell on the average of $1 
billion below the President's request. I do not intend to get into a 
tit for tat on educational spending, however. Being a member of a local 
school board at one time before I came to the Senate, and as chairman 
of the Labor and Human Resources Committee responsible for education 
funding, there is nothing that I care more about than being certain 
that we do have quality education in this country. That is something 
everyone is dedicated to. How much of that can be guaranteed by moneys 
we spend here in Washington is another matter. In some cases it is 
clearly something we need to do, particularly when we mandate certain 
requirements on schools. Then, we must be willing to be a participant 
in helping to pay for those mandates. That, I think, has been 
particularly true with initiatives such as the education for disabled 
students. We mandated the inclusion of those students in public 
schools, and I think we should be willing to help continue to fund the 
needs of that mandate.
  But I suggest that, as we debate education today, most citizens in 
this country realize the success of excellence in education really 
depends on our local communities, our local school boards, and students 
and parents who will recognize the importance of quality education and 
are willing to invest the time and the resources to see that

[[Page S10946]]

we have it. I think there is no sadder indictment of education in 
general than the fact that some students are taking student loans when 
they graduate from high school but then have to take remedial reading 
when they get to college. We are doing a great disservice to the 
students in our Nation when they pile up an indebtedness of student 
loans but are not prepared to take advantage of the higher education 
they are receiving, whether it be in liberal arts or vocational-
technical education.
  We have to give those students--and it is not just we here in the 
Federal Government, but each and every one of us--the ability and the 
opportunity to achieve excellence in education. It should be the 
students themselves who will have the self-discipline to recognize the 
importance of that to them.
  But right here in the Nation's Capitol we have not been able, with 
all the money that has gone into the District of Columbia, to hold up 
our heads with the primary and secondary schools that we have here in 
the District of Columbia. It is a shame that we have students who have 
to walk through metal detectors for fear of what might occur, a 
shooting in a high school. It is a shame that we have leaking roofs and 
crumbling infrastructure in our elementary schools. Every child in this 
country should be able to attend the elementary school in their 
neighborhood that has the highest quality of education to be offered.
  But I would just suggest, and I am sure the Senator from 
Massachusetts believes the same as I do, that this is something that 
our Nation does care about. We have always been a country that cares 
about education. We have always been a country that hands off, as a 
legacy to the next generation, our belief in the importance of 
education. But it is totally wrong to say that we have decimated this 
opportunity for excellence in education because Republicans have 
slashed the education budget. That is not the case, Madam President, 
and that is not the answer to excellence and quality in education. We 
need to work together to the extent that we can to find those programs 
that can be of help. We have done that before and we should continue to 
do so.
  It has been a big disappointment to me that the Democratic side of 
the aisle has not been supportive of efforts which we have undertaken, 
and which we passed unanimously, except for two votes, to initiate job 
training reform efforts and strong support for vocational education 
initiatives, which are an important component of our desires to achieve 
a working partnership between the Federal, State and local governments. 
That, I think, is one of the answers that we need to look to when we 
look at what the Federal responsibilities may be in assisting in 
education.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I made some comments earlier in a 
presentation about the record, about the resources of the Congress in 
the last several years. When I returned to my office, I saw my good 
friend and colleague, Senator Kassebaum, addressing the issue of 
education, and returned to hear her pearls of wisdom on this issue.
  Senator Kassebaum's suggestion that education funding has been 
slashed over a 6-year period is simply mistaken. In every year since 
fiscal year 1990, education spending has increased. In fiscal years 
1994 and 1995, education appropriations increased by $1.1 billion and 
$0.9 billion. It was not until the Republican takeover that Congress 
proposed to slash education spending.
  There are just a few more points I want to add at this time. I tried 
earlier to point out what the Congress had actually done in allocating 
resources. The fact that you spend money does not necessarily mean you 
are going to end up with good education. That is a given. But it is a 
reflection of your priorities. And when we have a reduction in real 
terms, given the expanded student population, both in K-12 and higher 
education, cutting back in technology and other programs, that is a 
reflection of national priorities.
  What basically we do as legislators, as the Senator from Kansas 
understands so well, is make choices. And we make choices about 
priorities. When we see, now, funding in education at about 1.3 percent 
of our national budget, I think most American families think it is 
considerably higher. That number is not concomitant with our commitment 
to the young people of this country. I think it is worthy of pointing 
that out.
  The fact of the matter is, if a child goes to school hungry in the 
morning, that child is not going to be able to learn, even if you spend 
money on books and teachers. If you go to a school, you will find that 
classrooms are in a deteriorating condition. Many of the classrooms in 
my own State are. A recent report by the General Accounting Office 
shows the deterioration of the physical structures. It is primarily a 
State and local responsibility. But some of the schools in my own city 
of Boston will reach a temperature in the wintertime that is 
sufficiently cold that many of the students will be affected by that 
cold. It will be difficult to teach. If you have inadequate books or 
inadequate training for teachers, students will not learn.
  We know in many of the schools that we have in this country they are 
spending, by and large, probably double what is being expended in other 
schools, and we know they are getting, by and large, students who are 
graduating with high abilities. We know, really, what needs to be done.
  There are shared responsibilities in attempting to do it, but I would 
think our challenge is how we will push the envelope in this area. How 
are we going to encourage the local communities to enhance and support 
additional help? How are we going to get the States to recognize this 
as the priority? If we here in the Congress of the United States are 
seen as constantly reducing our commitment in this area, that sends a 
very powerful message. It is a very powerful message.
  I do take exception to what has happened in recent years, frankly, 
under Republican administrations, in higher education. Education in the 
1960 election was one of the prime differences, that, I think, played a 
major role: Was the Federal Government going to become involved in 
scholarship help and assistance? One candidate said yes. The other 
candidate, effectively, said no.
  And then it was set up for higher education that $3 out of every $4 
invested by the Federal Government went into grants, not into loans. 
Now it is just the reverse: $3 out of the $4 are loans, not grants. Yet 
reviews have demonstrated, time and again, that the Federal Treasury 
profited $8 for every dollar invested in education grants through the 
GI bill.
  Investments in education pay off, and that has been the lesson. Maybe 
there are some programs that should be changed. To move back from that 
ongoing and continuing commitment is a reflection of different 
priorities, and that is essentially what I think is the point being 
made.
  The fact of the matter is, a week ago when we saw the significant 
cuts made by the Senate Republicans and then a week later they come 
back and add $2.2 billion, I doubt very much that somehow the 
Republican leadership suddenly discovered increasing value in 
education.
  A final point I want to make is about questions of higher education 
and the indebtedness of students. One of the very important aspects of 
the Direct Loan Program is not only in the facility of lower interest 
rates and the facility of students to deal with those, but also tuition 
contingency repayments, which said that if you are a student and you 
graduate, you might have $10,000 or $15,000 of loans obligated; if you 
want to be a teacher or you want to be a social worker or you want to 
be a police officer or you want to be a child care worker or you want 
to be a teacher's aide, then what it is going to mean, in terms of your 
repayment, is a percent of your income--just a percent --for a period 
of time.
  That says to the young people, OK, maybe we haven't gotten it quite 
right at the Federal level in terms of the ratio of direct loans to 
grants, but I tell you what we are going to do. Even if you have to 
borrow, we will make it affordable so you only have to pay it at 5 
percent or 7 percent.
  That is an enormous, enormous advantage to students. I don't think 
you could find a handful of students in this country who would turn 
their backs on that particular opportunity. That was part of our Direct 
Loan Program. We stood out here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and 
said, ``Let the colleges make their own decision whether they

[[Page S10947]]

want the Direct Loan Program or the Guaranteed Loan Program. Let the 
colleges, let the students.''
  What is more democratic than that? What is more local empowerment 
than that? What gets more power from the Federal Government back to the 
States and the colleges than that particular proposal? You would think 
that was a proposal that would carry. Absolutely not. We were closed 
down. Virtually unanimous support in opposition to that by our 
Republican friends.
  So I hope as we come into these last days that parents, students, 
business leaders, and young people who are not going on to college--
those who are concerned about the future of this country--really study 
this record well.
  Any time Senator Kassebaum speaks about education, there is a great 
deal for us to learn from her comments. I always do. Although I missed 
her remarks earlier, I look forward to reading them in the Record.
  But I do think there is a pretty central difference in the record of 
the two political parties on the priority of education. The President 
has stated that education, Medicare, and environmental issues are his 
priorities, and it was only after there were significant cuts in those 
that the Government was shut down. I think the American people remember 
that.
  We speak today about one aspect of those priorities, and it is 
education. I think the American people place a very high priority on 
it. They place a great responsibility on all of us to try and make 
whatever we allocate more effective in enhancing student achievement 
and accomplishments in schools and colleges across this country.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I can comment for a moment. We can 
probably go on all afternoon talking about education, but I am sure 
there are those who would like to get back to the pipeline bill.
  We can have dueling charts. I don't think that helps us at this 
juncture. The Senator from Massachusetts raised many of the same 
priorities in education that I did. We worry about crumbling 
infrastructure, we worry about the quality of education, we worry about 
being able to attract the best and the brightest teachers into 
teaching. All of these things are a part of the educational debate.
  I think where we differ, and differ significantly, is whether the 
Federal Government is the answer to all of those questions, and I 
suggest not. I believe most Americans realize that is so. Federal 
dollars in education are less than 10 percent of the education dollars 
spent in this country. Local and State governments spend, I think, 
about $508 billion in education. I happen to believe that it still 
should be a question of local and State authority on education.
  The Federal Government can provide support, but if we start to rely 
more and more on Federal dollars coming from here in Washington and 
believe that solves the problem, then I suggest, Mr. President, that we 
are in trouble. That is where we differ: Who bears the main 
responsibility for the funding of our educational system?
  I suggest it has worked well, and it will continue and should work 
best, at the local level. I think that is where there is a fundamental 
difference.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.

                          ____________________