[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 32 (Friday, March 20, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2358-S2362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CUTS IN EDUCATION FUNDING

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's Friday noontime, and I want to make 
clear that the eyes of the Nation are going to be on the Senate of the 
United States next Tuesday when we will vote on a proposal that will 
provide a $1.6 billion tax cut that will mostly benefit the wealthy 
individuals who send their children to private school. That is $1.6 
billion that could be used to support our public school system.
  I think it's important for the Nation that parents review what has 
happened in the U.S. Senate over the last few days. Some very important 
decisions have been made by the Budget Committee. They have decided how 
to allocate the nation's scarce federal resources--and education 
doesn't get its fair share. And, next week, we will be voting on this 
$1.6 billion tax break that will primarily benefit the private schools.
  I take issue with those who believe we ought to support the Budget 
Committee's decision to cut $1.6 billion from education. We should not 
abandon the public schools in this country. No challenge we face as a 
Nation is more important than strengthening the academic achievement 
and accomplishment of the young people in this country--the 48 million 
young people who attend the public schools in this country every single 
day.
  On the one hand, Republicans want to use $1.6 billion to support for 
tax breaks to help private schools. And, at the same time, our 
Republican friends on the Budget Committee cut federal education 
funding by $400 million from last year, and $1.6 billion below the 
President's level. Those who are making the speeches about the 
importance of public schools, if they stand behind the public school 
system, are going to have to answer the questions why they continue to 
cut crucial support for education.
  Now, look at what the Budget Committee provided in this past week. We 
will have the chance to debate the budget when it comes up here in the 
next several days. But let's look at where our Republican friends place 
their priorities and what they said about public education. They cut 
$1.6 billion below President Clinton's budget on public education. Now, 
money is not always the final indicator about what is a good program or 
what is a bad program; we recognize that. But it is a pretty good 
indication about where a nation's priorities are. If we go out and 
start to cut, as the Budget Committee did this past week, $1.6 billion 
in discretionary assistance for the public schools, we know that 
education is not a national priority.
  That means that they cut education and Head Start funding by $1 
billion below the level needed just to maintain the current services. 
In order for communities to be able to continue to serve the current 
number of children in Head Start, you would need an additional $1 
billion just to meet inflation. Right now, we provide enough funding in 
Head Start to serve about 40 percent of all the children that are 
eligible. But now some of those children currently in Head Start 
programs won't get the help the need.
  Now, the Head Start Program doesn't solve all of our problems in 
early education. But what is undeniable is the importance of early 
intervention with children. What we have seen with the various Carnegie 
Commission reports, and the other reports, is that the earlier the 
intervention, the more confidence young children will have. The Head 
Start Program is a tried and tested program. If a chid gets help in the 
Head Start Program, they are more likely to succeed in school and as 
adults. All you have to do is look at the Ypsilanti programs, the 
Beethoven project, and various other studies that have been done, and 
they show what the importance is in terms of early intervention. This 
Republican budget cuts $1 billion out of that Head Start Program and 
other important education programs. It also cuts funding for the 
education programs $400 million below even last year. It prohibits 
funding for any of the new programs.

  So we are having a reduction of $1.6 billion in discretionary funding 
for education, which includes cuts in the Head Start Program. That Head 
Start Program has had bipartisan support. President Bush increased it 
$300 million or $400 million a year. We ran into problems during that 
period of time that we weren't giving sufficient support and help for 
those teachers that were involved in those programs. And some of the 
quality issues were important to address, but we addressed them in a 
bipartisan way. We also indicated in the reauthorization of the Head 
Start Program some special funding for the earliest interventions, 
going down to 3-year-olds and 2-year-olds. That was very important. But 
this Budget Committee says no to those programs, no to even those that 
are in those programs, by cutting back funding.
  The President of the United States is working hard to address the 
challenges that we are facing out in our public schools, particularly 
that we are going to need additional teachers in our schools and we 
need to rebuild the nation's school buildings. Because of enrollments 
rising and massive teachers retirements, we are going to need 100,000 
new teachers. The President has committed enough funding for 100,000 
new teachers in his budget to reduce class sizes in the early grades. 
The

[[Page S2359]]

President of the United States said, let's try a smaller class size for 
the early years, when the children are just beginning their education 
experience and they need more individual attention. But, the Republican 
Budget Committee has said no to the 100,000 new teachers and no to 
smaller class sizes.
  Then the President of the United States introduced a plan to help 
disadvantaged communities--urban or rural--improve failing schools. A 
number of communities across this country, such as Chicago and my own 
city of Boston, are making dramatic improvements in educational 
opportunities for children. The President's program for creating 
educational opportunity zones is one of the most important investments 
we can make to get quick help for tough reform in these needy 
communities.
  The President has proposed help for local communities that are going 
to take some dramatic steps to try to enhance academic achievement. He 
calls them ``education opportunity zones.'' We have the record on 
these, where these are being tried across the country to try to provide 
additional help and support for those teachers. That program won't be 
given a chance to get off the ground. There won't be a nickel for that 
program that was advanced by the President of the United States.
  Senator Moseley-Braun has introduced a very important program to 
modernize and rebuild the nation's schools. That is very important in 
every community in this country--whether you have to address 
overcrowded or crumbling schools. I believe that my own State has the 
second oldest schools in this country. We find that on a cold day where 
the temperature goes down to 20 degrees in Boston that 10 or 15 schools 
in Boston are effectively closed because of poor heating systems. Those 
children have to stay home. We are talking about a very modest program 
that will bring $22 billion in bonding authority to the states 
interest-free. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun has been fighting for that 
day in and day out.
  But, the Republicans refuse to make a strong investment in rebuilding 
the nation's schools.
  There is no funding for the High Hopes School College Partnership 
Program to help young people from disadvantaged communities reach their 
dream of going to college.
  There is no increase in the Title I funding to improve students 
achievement in math and reading.
  What has to happen before Republicans will stop the attack on public 
education? The Third International Math and Science Study was just 
released that shows our students aren't measuring up. We have had hours 
and days of discussion, and volumes of reports, that talk about the 
importance of early intervention programs, and the importance of 
programs that provide extra help in areas of math reading, and science. 
The Title I program for needy children has made a tremendous difference 
in the reading and math skills of young people. We have been reminded 
as a nation about the importance of furthering our efforts in math and 
science. And yet, Title I and other important programs will not get an 
increase.
  The Republican budget won't even allow for an increase in Pell grants 
that are so crucial to helping needy college students afford to go to 
college. About 80 percent of the children in the highest income bracket 
finish college, but only about 8 percent of students in the lowest 25 
percent finish college. Many of those students cannot afford to finish. 
But the Republicans won't help more needy students get the assistance 
they need.
  I can remember not long ago, at the University of Massachusetts in 
Boston, their tuition used to be $1,100. They raised it to $1,200, and 
they lost 10 percent of all their applicants--$100. What is the profile 
of those students? Eighty-five percent of those students' parents never 
went to college, and 85 percent of them are working 25 hours a week, or 
more. One hundred dollars makes a major difference. A modest increase 
in the Pell grants, even an increase of $300, is a lifeline to those 
young people so that they can finish college and get good jobs.
  All of these programs that the Republicans have rejected or frozen 
are paid for in the President's budget. They are paid for. But, 
nonetheless, we see that the Budget Committee said no --no to each one 
of the President's programs to try to strengthen education. Then we are 
faced with billions of dollars of cuts from the President's levels. And 
at the same time, the Republican program provides a tax break for the 
wealthiest individuals in this country. And for what? To help improve 
public education? No! To subsidize the private school tuition they 
already pay.
  If that makes sense, then my colleagues should vote for cloture next 
week. But every parent in this country ought to know what is happening 
on education, and every parent ought to know that we are being closed 
down from any opportunity to debate this issue--the most important 
debate we are going to be facing. It is Friday afternoon. We are going 
to have a little time to speak here on Friday afternoon, and a only 
little time before the cloture vote on Tuesday. Education is a key 
issue and it deserves a long debate. And, it deserves the discussion of 
other ideas, not just one way.
  Mr. President, I can't believe that as an institution and 
as representatives of the people we constantly talk about education but 
our first order of business in education is to provide a tax break of 
$1.6 billion that does nothing to improve public schools. This is their 
education program: nothing to strengthen teachers; nothing to reduce 
class size; nothing to modernize and rebuild schools; nothing to expand 
after-school programs; cutting back on the Head Start Program that 
provides skills for children to go into the public school system. They 
say that this is their answer to their education. And we are being 
denied the opportunity to debate it.

  Mr. President, I think this is really the kind of irresponsible 
approach on education that really does an enormous disservice to the 
parents in this country. We should improve our public schools, not 
abandon them.
  I see my good friend from Connecticut on the floor who serves on the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee that governs education issues, and 
who has been tireless in advancing the cause of education. I am wonder 
if he is not as perplexed by the allocation of this $1.6 billion. As I 
understand, the Joint Tax Committee has stated that the bill spends 
$1.6 billion to allocate to private schools. Of the 35.4 million public 
school families, only 30 percent would be able to use this IRA. And 
those public school families would only get an average benefit of $7--
$7 per family. Of the 2.9 million who send their children to private 
schools, 83 percent will be able to use it. And the private school 
families will get an average benefit of $37.
  I am just wondering if he is not as perplexed by that whole approach 
and that whole program--and the allocations of the benefits of this 
program--and whether he would agree with me that this really is a sham. 
When we talk about trying to strengthen academic achievement, academic 
accomplishment, and investment in the young people of this country in 
our public school system, is this what we should accept?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all let me thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts for joining me in speaking on this issue. With just a few 
hours remaining between now and Tuesday when this matter may be very 
well decided, the very questions he is raising may never have another 
opportunity to be aired and discussed--certainly not in this Congress 
and maybe not again for some time. So I thank him for providing a 
valuable opportunity to raise some tremendously important issues.
  My fervent hope is that people all across this country between now 
and Tuesday will listen to what is going on here and will raise their 
voices and address the American Congress. My hope is that they will 
say--this is my money you are talking about, this $1.6 billion over the 
next 10 years that you want to go for a tax break that gives only $7 to 
public school parents, and maybe $37 a year to private school parents. 
My hope is that they will tell us clearly that this is not exactly our 
nation's highest priority when it comes to the education of our 
children. That instead we should be talking about school construction, 
about the need for smaller class size, about the need for early 
childhood education, and the need for funding for special education.
  These next few days may be the only time for the remainder of this 
year

[[Page S2360]]

that we are going to have to talk about the educational priorities of 
this country. So I am hopeful that the questions that the Senator from 
Massachusetts has raised will raise the temperature of this debate. I 
am hopeful that the nation will focus its attention on this issue.
  The education of our children is one subject matter that joins people 
all across the political spectrum--whether you are a conservative 
Republican, a liberal Democrat, or somewhere in between. Everyone in 
America understands that if you try to talk about making this Nation 
strong and vibrant in the 21st century and simultaneously fail to 
invest intelligently in the public educational needs of this Nation, 
you are engaging in hypocrisy. This Nation cannot be strong, cannot be 
vibrant, and cannot be a global competitor unless we are willing to 
make the commitment that the overwhelming majority of people in this 
country want to make to improve our schools and to give our children 
the opportunities they deserve.

  I want to remind people of the numbers--they aren't terribly 
complicated. There are 53 million children in school today in 
elementary and secondary schools--53 million. Forty-eight million of 
them go to public schools--48 million. Five million go to private 
schools. Yet, this bill that we are going to be asked to vote on come 
Tuesday provides the lion's share of the dollars--fifty-two percent of 
the money--to only 5 million children and their families. These 
families get $37, and the kids who go to public school and their 
families get $7.
  Do you think that taking $1.6 billion and providing people with a $7 
tax break, or even a $37 tax break if your kid goes to a private 
school, is an intelligent investment of your money? Do you think it is 
the best investment given all the other needs we have--with schools 
falling apart in our inner cities, with special-education costs rising 
every year? It's not uncommon to spend $50,000 or $100,000 a year to 
meet the needs of one or two children who require special-education. 
Eighteen percent of the budget in my State for education goes to 
special education. Do you think that meeting these needs is a lessor 
priority? Do you think that reducing the average kindergarten class 
size from 32 kids is a lessor priority? If you do, then don't say 
anything over the next 72 hours, because that is what you are going to 
get. But if you have a sense of outrage, a sense of outrage about what 
you think is a misplaced priority, if you think that we ought to be 
doing a far better job than what this bill calls for, then we urge you 
to speak out.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I must say that the Senator makes a powerful case. We 
urge those who are watching to write to their Members of the Senate. 
The vote is on Tuesday. Get busy and let them know that they shouldn't 
be voting to cut off this debate on how to support public education. We 
are just trying to have this debate and offer amendments on our own 
ideas.
  I firmly believe that we should be building schools and not be 
building new tax shelters for the wealthy. We should be reducing the 
class size and not reducing aid to public schools.
  But I will ask the Senator one final question on this: Does the 
Senator also find it extraordinary that just this past week the Budget 
Committee--on a party line vote--have passed a Republican budget that 
will cut $1.6 billion in education funding below the President's 
budget, to cut $1 billion below current services for education and Head 
Start, and to provide no funds for new teachers, smaller classrooms, or 
for safer, more modern school buildings? Does the Senator agree with me 
that last week our Republican friends cut $1.6 billion from education 
programs that are tried and tested and proven to be effective and 
helpful, and then came to the floor of U.S. Senate and said that they 
are really the friends of public education because the Coverdell bill 
to provide tax breaks to the wealthy will solve the problems in public 
education? Is he troubled by this juxtaposition where one day they are 
cutting the heart out of the public school budget and then coming onto 
the floor and emphasizing that their goal is to help public schools? 
The problem is that they can't answer the question that the money is 
going to private schools. And the bottom line is that if they get 
cloture, does the Senator agree with me that we would be seeing a 
significant reduction in our national commitment to the public schools 
of this country, if we continue to support the Coverdell bill and 
permit these cuts to go ahead?
  Mr. DODD. The Senator from Massachusetts has said it very well. I 
couldn't agree with him more. The great irony, you know, is that most 
people do not follow the activities of the Senate budget committee. If 
you want your eyes to glaze over, try to follow a budget debate, 
whether you are talking about local, State, or national budgets. It can 
get pretty arcane--budget stories get buried away in the back of your 
local newspaper. But what the Senator from Massachusetts just told you 
is absolutely the truth. There was a budget agreement reached that will 
set the priorities for education for the coming months and years in 
this country. This agreement has just cut $1.6 billion out of 
priorities like Head Start, Title I, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools. 
This agreement failed to provide funding to reduce classroom size, to 
train teachers and to provide early education. All of these programs 
are being cut, and simultaneously we are being asked to provide an 
additional $1.6 billion in tax breaks--$7 to a public school family and 
$37 to a private school family--as if by doing so, we were making some 
great commitment to education.
  I have spoken to students from every single public high school in my 
State in the last 10 or 12 years, and I try to make it to my inner-city 
public high schools every year. I spoke at Manchester High School last 
week, the week before at Harding, a public high school in Bridgeport, 
CT. I try to listen to what is going on in these schools. I have some 
wonderful schools in my State that have tremendous resources and great 
commitment by the local communities to support them. I am very excited 
when I go and visit those schools. I just wish I could take people with 
me on these visits because, unfortunately, in this country the only 
time we hear about public schools is when something goes wrong--when a 
violent act occurs or something falls apart. It is the old adage that 
the only planes that the media reports about are the ones that don't 
fly. We rarely hear about the planes that fly. And every day in this 
country there are teachers and students and families that are doing a 
terrific job in providing for the educational needs of their families.
  But, I also have other schools that are not doing as well, that are 
suffering financially, that have encountered tremendous obstacles in 
trying to meet the special problems that large inner-city schools and 
rural schools can face. Clearly, there are needs in these schools. My 
concern here, as the Senator from Massachusetts has expressed, is that 
on Tuesday we are going to vote to limit debate, that we will not be 
allowed to bring up amendments that we think would offer some 
alternatives for meeting these needs and for creating real choices for 
families.
  The irony of this bill is it is called a choice bill, a bill to give 
people choices about education. I would like the choice to represent 
the millions of families who think maybe the special-education needs 
are larger than a $7 tax break. And I have a lot of mayors and a lot of 
taxpayers in my communities who watch their property taxes go up 
because of the cost of special-educational needs. Why not give me a 
chance to offer an amendment that would allow this body to vote on 
whether or not they think that priority is higher than a $7 tax break?
  How about early education needs? I would like the opportunity to 
offer an amendment on early childhood education. There are 13 million 
children every day in this country that are in child care settings. 
There are 5 million kids in this country who don't have anywhere to go 
after school. You tell me what you think is more important--that I try 
to do something for those 13 million kids who are in child care, much 
of it of appalling quality, or the 5 million children who are home 
alone or wandering around in malls getting involved in trouble after 
school? You tell me where you want your money to go--a $7 tax break or 
a $37 tax break if you are in a private school, or would you like to 
see me as your Senator put some resources into after-school care to get 
these kids off the street?

[[Page S2361]]

  We would like to offer an amendment on school construction to improve 
the quality of public schools. We have schools falling apart across 
this country, as the Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out. You 
tell me where you want your money to go--toward improving these 
facilities so these kids have a decent place to learn, or do you want a 
$7 tax break? I happen to believe most people in this country, if given 
the choice to be here to vote on Tuesday, would want their tax dollars 
to go for things like early childhood education, school construction, 
classroom size, and special education.
  They may differ on the priority they would give to those different 
issues, but I would be willing to wager that given the choice of voting 
for any one of those options over the choice of spending $1.6 billion 
over the next 10 years for a $7 tax break, they would say that those 
issues are higher priorities.
  So I am hopeful that over this weekend and on Monday, people across 
this country will be heard on this issue. After Tuesday it will be too 
late. We won't get the chance to bring up the issue of choice again. 
This may be the only significant debate we are able to have on the 
quality of education in this country.
  So the Senator from Massachusetts and I and others are taking to the 
floor here today to try to raise the level of awareness so that the 
public will know what is at stake. It is an important debate and one 
that should be aired fully and thoroughly. We ought to have the chance 
to bring up school construction, classroom size, early education, 
special education and other ideas. This procedural debate is over 
whether or not we are going to be allowed to even raise these issues, 
to even discuss them and ask our colleagues to vote for them.
  Whether or not you agree with each and every one of these other 
priorities, shouldn't I be allowed to raise the concerns of my 
constituents? Mr. President, when I traveled across my State a few 
weeks ago and met with all my mayors, 169 cities and towns, and 
traveled to various parts of my State and asked them to tell me what 
they thought the priorities should be in this coming session of 
Congress, almost without exception, special education was on the mind 
of every single mayor in every town. Shouldn't I have the opportunity 
to raise that issue?
  I have communities in my State, Mr. President, that are small 
communities that have small populations, and yet it is not uncommon for 
those people and those towns to spend $50,000 or $100,000 on the 
special-educational needs of a child or two children in that community. 
And we all understands the value of doing so.
  We made a commitment years ago that the Federal Government would meet 
at least 40 percent of the costs of special education. But we have 
never contributed more than 8 percent--we have never kept our promise. 
So, if you said to me, What do you think is more important, what do 
your constituents care more about, lowering their taxes and providing 
some help from the Federal Government to educate a child with special 
needs or giving a $7 or $37 tax break? I would have to say that a $7 or 
$37 tax break misses the mark.
  Proponents of this bill will argue that this bill will give families 
more choices, that it will give them the option to enroll their 
children in private schools. There are many fine private schools in 
this nation and they do provide an important choice for families. But, 
Mr. President, I recently took a look around the Washington, DC, area 
to try to determine what the cost of a private school was just in this 
city, northern Virginia, and Maryland. The average cost is somewhere 
between $10,000 and $17,000 a year. Does anyone honestly believe that a 
$37 tax break is going to make any difference to a family trying to 
make a choice whether or not to send its child to a private school or a 
public school--$37?
  I am not making up these numbers. These numbers come from the 
nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee that did an analysis of this bill. And 
the Joint Tax Committee said that the average benefit for private 
school families is only $37. Where is the logic in this? Where is the 
logic in this, with the limited resources we have? And our resources 
are limited. The days are far gone and over when we could just write 
checks and spend money without any consideration of the fiscal 
implications for our Nation. Limited dollars are all we have. So with 
these limited dollars, what do we do with them? Do we spend $1.6 
billion to give a $7 or a $37 tax break? With $1.6 billion, I may not 
solve every one of the issues I raised here. School construction needs 
top $112 billion nationwide; finding 100,000 teachers to reduce class 
size is expensive; early education and afterschool care is expensive; 
special education is expensive. I am not suggesting that the $1.6 
billion would in every way solve these four problems I have mentioned, 
but I would rather spend $1.6 billion on improving the school 
facilities where we send our kids, reducing class size so the kid can 
learn better, reducing taxpayer costs on special education, and 
providing early childhood and afterschool care for families, than spend 
it providing a $37 tax break for someone going to a private school or a 
$7 tax break for someone going to a public school.
  What am I missing? The math here just does not add up. We have 
limited resources, we have limited financial capacity, we all know 
this. We are being told that we have a staggering problem in the 
quality of school facilities. We have a significant problem in special 
education. We have a significant problem in early education and 
afterschool needs in this country. We have a significant problem in the 
size of classrooms. Everyone understands these are legitimate 
problems. So, do I take that $1.6 billion and try to do something about 
school construction, special ed, class size, and early education and 
afterschool care, among others?

  Mr. President, over the next few days there will be a lot of TV talk 
shows about other issues that seem to have captured the attention of 
the American public. It will be interesting to see, come Sunday, 
whether the national talk shows think that the quality of the education 
of our children is of interest to the public. Even if you disagree with 
me on where our educational priorities should be, I expect you would 
agree that this would be healthier debate to have on national TV 
shows--about what we ought to be doing with our tax dollars and 
educational system--than what I suspect will be the topic of some of 
the talk shows.
  But without debate and without the discussion, this notion of choice 
will be lost. I am not going to have the choice on Tuesday, as it 
stands right now, to offer any of the ideas that I have raised here 
today. I think I ought to have that right, as one Member of this body. 
I think my constituency in Connecticut cares, at the very least as much 
and I would argue significantly more, about special education, early 
education, school construction and class size as they do whether or not 
someone gets a $37 or a $7 tax break or a $7 tax break. I think they 
care about these issues. Even the ones who disagree with me, I wager, 
Mr. President, think I ought to have the right to raise them and ask 
the 99 other Members of this body whether or not they want to vote for 
these ideas or against them.
  But as it stands right now, I am going to be denied that opportunity. 
That may be the only opportunity this year to raise these issues in a 
meaningful debate. We spent 5 days here discussing whether or not we 
should to name the national airport for Ronald Reagan. I voted for this 
proposal. But to spend five days--five days--on whether or not to 
rename an airport and then to be told I cannot get an hour on an 
education bill to talk about school construction. I do not get 5 
minutes to talk about early education and afterschool care. I don't get 
5 minutes to talk about special education. But I get 5 days to talk 
about whether or not we rename an airport. You tell me what the 
priorities are around here.
  If you wonder why I am frustrated and sound a little angry, it is 
because I am, because I hear people all across this country saying 
education is key to our nation's future. This country cannot meet its 
obligations and the challenges in front of it unless our young people 
get a proper education. And 53 million of them are sitting today in a 
classroom studying and trying to learn, with teachers who are trying to 
help them, and parents who are worried about them. I do not understand 
how we think we are going to convince them we are doing something 
worthwhile in giving a private-school child a $37 tax break and a 
public-school child

[[Page S2362]]

a $7 tax break. That is what this debate comes down to.
  I plead with the public, please let your Members know that at the 
very least you think these ideas ought to be raised for debate and 
discussion and we ought to have the right to decide in a democratic 
fashion whether or not their votes, representing your ideas, are going 
to be cast in favor of a tax break for a few or trying to do something 
with that $1.6 billion that could affect the quality of public 
education in this country for years to come.
  I urge you over this weekend, and I urge the media, to spend at least 
as much time between now and Monday venting this issue as we have on an 
issue that, frankly, has very little to do with the quality of life in 
this country. We need that kind of debate. We need the opportunity to 
cast some votes that offer real choices--real choices--about the 
educational priorities of this country.

                          ____________________