[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 120 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8606-H8610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION IS AT THE CENTER OF AMERICA'S FUTURE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to the remarks that I had
intended to make tonight, as a Member of this House who represents
rural America, or at least a significantly rural district, I would
simply note a few facts.
In 1979, the last year of the Carter administration, agriculture
programs cost the taxpayer less than $4 billion in direct payments to
farmers and prices paid to farmers at the marketplace were considerably
higher than they are today.
This year, under Freedom to Farm, better known in rural America as
freedom to fail at farming, which was rammed through this House by the
Republican leadership a number of years ago, the cost to taxpayers has
risen to well above $20 billion a year, almost 30 if we count all
costs, and the prices paid to farmers have fallen through the floor.
I think most farmers, at least in my area, recognize that rural
America cannot thrive unless family farmers get a decent price for
their product and until the so-called Freedom to Farm Act is radically
changed, rural America will continue to decay. Both parties need to
face up to that fact. Major elements of my party have begun to. I wish
I could say the same for major elements on the part of the other party.
But who knows, time may produce miracles. I hope that they will
realize that they must undo what they did if farmers are to really have
a decent shot at making a decent living through the marketplace.
Having said that, I would now like to turn to the subject that I
wanted to talk about tonight, which is education. Because more than any
other subject, education and what we do about it and what this entire
country does about it lies at the center of the question of how well we
will prepare for our country's future.
This is going to be a fairly dull speech. It will be filled with
exactly what political consultants say we should not have in our
speeches. It will be filled with numbers and facts. It will not be
exciting. It is not meant to be. It is meant simply to state in a clear
way who has tried to do what to education over the last 5 years.
We will undoubtedly hear in the Presidential debates tomorrow night;
and we will have certainly seen across the Nation, Republican
candidates giving speeches and running ads pretending to be friends of
education. Those speeches fly in the face of the historical record of
the past 6 years. That record demonstrates that education has been one
of the central targets of House Republican efforts to cut Federal
investments in programs essential for building America's future in
order to provide large tax cuts that they have been promising their
constituents for years.
Six years ago, in their drive to take control of the House of
Representatives, the Republican leaders, then led by Newt Gingrich,
produced the so-called Contract with America, which they claimed would
balance the budget while at the same time making room for huge tax
cuts.
They indicated that one of the ways that they would do so was by
abolishing four departments. Eliminating the Department of Education
was their new number one goal. They also wanted to eliminate the
Departments of Energy, Commerce and HUD.
Immediately upon taking over the Congress in 1995, they proposed cuts
below existing appropriations, not just below the President's request,
but below previous appropriations in a rescission bill H.R. 1158. That
bill passed the House on March 16, 1995, reducing Federal expenditures
by nearly $12 billion.
Education programs accounted for only 1.6 percent of the Federal
expenditures in fiscal year 1995. But they made up 14 percent of the
spending reductions in the House Republican package. That package was
adopted with all but six House Republicans voting in favor of cuts
totaling $1.8 billion.
Next, H.R. 1883 was introduced, which called for ``eliminating the
Department of Education and redefining Federal role in education.''
The legislation was cosponsored by more than half of all House
Republicans, including as original cosponsors the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the current Speaker; the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey), the majority leader; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), the majority whip.
[[Page H8607]]
The desire to eliminate the Department of Education was stated
explicitly in both the report that accompanied the Republican budget
resolution passed by the House and in the conference report on the
budget that accompanied the final product agreed to by both the House
and Senate Republicans.
That conference report, a sized-up copy of which I have here, for
House Concurrent Resolution 76, the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution,
states flatly: ``In the area of education, the House assumes the
termination of the Department of Education.''
That is what they voted for. The fiscal 1996 budget resolution not
only proposed the adoption of legislation to terminate the Department
organizationally, but it put in place a spending plan to eliminate
funding for a major portion of the Department's activities and programs
in hopes of partially achieving the goal of elimination even if the
President refused to sign a formal termination for the Department.
The conference agreement adopted on June 29 proposed cuts in funding
for Function 500, the area of the budget containing all Federal
education programs, of $17.6 billion, or 30 percent below the amount
needed to keep pace with inflation over the 6-year period starting in
fiscal 1996.
The House passed resolution had proposed even larger cuts. Every
House Republican but one voted for both the House resolution and the
conference report.
Then the budget resolution established a framework for passage of the
13 appropriations bills. The Labor, HHS education appropriation bill,
which contained the vast majority of funds that go to local school
districts, was the hardest hit by that resolution.
{time} 2115
The fiscal 1996 appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Education
was adopted by the House on August 4 of 1995. It slashed funding from
the $25 billion level that had been originally approved for the
Department in fiscal 1995 to $20.8 billion for the coming year. That
$4.2 billion, or 17 percent cut below the prior year's levels, was even
larger when inflation was considered and was passed in the face of
information indicating that total school enrollment in the United
States was increasing by about three-quarters of a million students a
year.
The programs affected by those cuts included: title I for
disadvantaged children, reduced by $1.1 billion below the prior year;
teacher training reduced by $251 million; vocational education reduced
by $273 million; safe and drug-free schools cut by $241 million; and
Goals 2000 to raise student performance reduced by $361 million.
Republicans in this House voted in favor of that bill 213-18. The bill
was opposed by virtually every national organization representing
parents, teachers, school administrators, and local school boards.
The Republican leadership of the House was so determined to force the
President to sign the legislation and other similar appropriations that
they were willing to see the government shut down twice to, in the
words of one Republican leader, ``force the President to his knees.''
Speaker Gingrich said, ``On October 1 if we don't appropriate, there is
no money. You can veto whatever you want to but as of October 1, there
is no government. We're going to go over the liberal Democratic part of
the government and say to them, we could last 60 days, 90 days, 120
days, 5 years, a century. There's a lot of stuff we don't care if it's
ever funded.''
It is clear that the Labor, Health and Education bill and the
education funding in particular in that bill was at the heart of the
controversy that resulted in those government shutdowns. Cutting
education was an issue that Republicans felt so strongly about that
they literally were willing to see the government shut down in an
attempt to achieve this goal. Speaker Gingrich said, ``I don't care
what the price is, I don't care if we have no executive offices and no
bonds for 60 days, not this time.''
House Republican whip Mr. DeLay said, ``We are going to fund only
those programs we want to fund. We're in charge. We don't have to
negotiate with the Senate. We don't have to negotiate with the
Democrats.''
When the government shut down, the public reacted strongly against
the Republican House leadership's hardheadedness and that led to the
eventual signing of the conference agreement on Labor, Health and
Education funding as part of an omnibus appropriations package on April
26, 1996, more than halfway through the fiscal year. That action came
after nine continuing resolutions and those two government shutdowns.
That agreement restored about half of the cuts below prior year's
funding that had been pushed through by the Republican majority,
raising the original House Republican figure of $20.8 billion for
education to $22.8 billion.
So on that occasion, as you can see, pressure from the Democratic
side of the aisle forced restoration of about $2 billion in education
spending.
Later in 1996, the Republican House caucus organized another attempt
to cut education funding below prior year's levels in the fiscal 1997
Labor-Health-Education bill. On July 12, 1996, the House adopted the
bill with the Republicans voting 209-22 in favor of passage.
Incidentally, I will not read it into the record at this point but my
submitted remarks will cite all of the rollcalls, dates and pages if
anyone wants to check them. The bill cut education by $54 million below
the levels agreed to for fiscal 1996 and $2.8 billion below the
President's request. During the debate on that bill, Republicans also
voted 227-2 to kill an amendment specifically aimed at restoring $1.2
billion in education funding.
As the fall and election of 1996 began to approach, the Republican
commitment to cut education began to be overshadowed by their desire to
adjourn Congress and go home to campaign. As a result, the President
and Democrats in Congress forced them to accept an education package
that was more than $3.6 billion above House-passed levels.
1997 brought a 1-year respite from Republican efforts to squeeze
education. For 1 year a welcomed bipartisan approach was followed and
the appropriation that passed the House and the final conference
agreement were extremely close to the amounts requested by the
President and the Department of Education.
Conflict between the two parties over education funding erupted again
in 1998 when the President requested $31.2 billion for the Department
for fiscal 1999. In July, the House Appropriations Committee reported
on a party line vote a Labor-Health-Education bill that cut the
President's education budget by more than $600 million; but the bill
remained in legislative limbo after the beginning of the next fiscal
year. Then on October 2, 1998, the Republicans voted with only six
dissenting votes to bring the bill to the floor. The leadership then
reversed itself on its desire to call up the bill and refused to bring
it to the floor. The House Republican leadership finally grudgingly
agreed to negotiate higher levels for education so they could return
home and campaign. The White House and the Democrats in Congress had
been able to force them to accept a funding level for education that
was $2.6 billion above their original House bill.
Last year, in 1999, the House Republican leaders again directed their
appropriators to report a Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill
that cut education spending below the President's request and below the
level of the prior year. The fiscal 2000 bill reported to the Committee
on Appropriations on a straight party line vote funded education
programs at nearly $200 million below the 1999 level. The bill was
almost $1.4 billion below the President's request.
Included in the cuts below requested levels were reductions in title
I grants to local school districts for education of disadvantaged
students, $264 million below; after-school programs were taken $300
million below the President's request; education reform and
accountability efforts, $491 million below; and improvement of
education technology resources, $301 million below. Because inadequate
funding threatened their ability to pass the bill, House Republican
leaders never brought it to the House floor. After weeks of pressure
from House Democrats, they ordered a separate bill that had been agreed
to with Senate Republican leaders to be brought to the House floor.
That bill contained significantly more education funding than
[[Page H8608]]
the original House bill but still cut the President's request for class
size reduction by $200 million, after-school programs cut by $300
million, title I by almost $200 million, and teacher quality programs
by $35 million.
The bill was opposed by the Committee for Education Funding which
represents 97 national organizations interested in education, including
parent and teacher groups, school boards and school administrators. It
was adopted by a vote of 218-211 with House Republicans voting 214-7 in
favor. After further negotiations, they agreed on November 18 to add
nearly $700 million more, which we were requesting, to those education
programs.
Now, this year. This year the President proposed a $4.5 billion
increase for education programs in the fiscal 2001 budget. The bill
reported by House Republicans cut the President's request by $2.9
billion. Cuts below the budget request included $400 million cut from
title I, $400 million from after-school programs, $1 billion for
improving teacher quality and $1.3 billion for repair of dilapidated
school buildings. It was adopted by a vote of 217-214 with House
Republicans voting 213-7 in favor. When the fiscal 2001 Labor, Health
and Education bill was sent to conference, a motion to instruct the
conferees to go to the higher Senate levels for education and other
programs was offered. It also instructed conferees to permit language
ensuring that funds provided for reduced class size and repairing
school buildings was used for those purposes. It was defeated 207-212
with Republicans voting 208-4 in opposition.
In summary, and I will supply tables for the record, the record
clearly shows that over the past 6 years, House Republicans set the
elimination of the Department of Education as the primary goal. Failing
that, they attempted to reduce education funding to the maximum extent
possible. Failing that, they attempted to reduce education funding to
the maximum extent possible. In every year since they have had control
of the House, they have attempted to cut the President's request for
education funding.
Appropriation bills passed by House Republicans would have cut a
total of $14.6 billion from presidential requests for education
funding. I repeat. Appropriation bills passed by House Republicans
would have cut a total of $14.6 billion from presidential requests for
education funding. In 3 of the 6 years that they have controlled the
House, they have actually attempted to cut education funding below
prior year levels despite steady increases in school enrollment, in the
annual increase in cost to local school districts of providing quality
classroom instruction.
Now, these education budget cuts have not been directed at Washington
bureaucrats as some Republicans have tried to argue but mainly at
programs that send money directly to local school districts to hire
teachers and improve curriculum. Programs such as title I, after-
school, safe and drug-free schools, class size reduction, educational
technology assistance, all send well over 95 percent of their funds
directly to local school districts. While zealots in the Republican
conference drove much of this agenda, it is clear that they could not
have succeeded without the repeated assistance from dozens of
Republican moderates who attempt now to portray themselves as friends
of education. They may have been in their hearts, but they were not
when the votes came.
The one redeeming aspect of the Republican record on education over
the last 6 years is that in most of those years, they failed to achieve
the cuts that they spent most of the year fighting to impose. When a
coalition between Democrats in Congress and in some cases members of
the Republican Party in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate, when a
coalition between them and the Democrats in this House and the
President made it clear that the bills containing those cuts would be
vetoed and that House Republicans by themselves could not override the
vetoes, legislation that was far more favorable to education was
finally adopted. For Republican Members now to attempt to take credit
for that fact is in effect bragging about their own political
ineptitude.
The question that concerned Americans must ask is this: What will
happen if the Republicans find a future opportunity to deliver on their
6-year agenda for education? They may eventually become more skillful
in their efforts to cut education. They may at some point have a larger
majority in one or both houses, or they may serve under a President who
will be more amenable to their education agenda. All of those prospects
should be very troubling to those who feel that local school districts
cannot do the job that the country needs without greater assistance
from the Federal Government.
Now, this is not an issue of local versus Federal control. Almost 93
percent of the money spent for elementary and secondary education at
the local level is spent in accordance with the wishes of State and
local governments. But there are national implications to failing
schools in any part of the country. The Federal Government has an
obligation to try to help disseminate information about what does and
does not work in educating children, and it has an obligation to
respond to critical needs by defining and focusing on national
priorities. That is what the other 7 percent of educational funding in
this country does. Education is indeed primarily a local
responsibility, but it must be a top priority at all levels, Federal,
State and local; or we will not get the job done.
In summary, as the tables will show in the remarks that I am making
tonight, the House Republican candidates now shout loudly that they can
be trusted to support education, but their record over the last 6 years
speaks louder than their words.
{time} 2130
The records show that in 3 of the last 6 years, House Republicans
tried to cut education $5.5 billion below previous levels and $13
billion below Presidential requests, $14.5 billion if you count their
first rescission effort in 1995. It shows that more than $15.6 billion
that has been restored came only after Democrats in the Congress and in
the White House demanded restoration.
That is the record that must be understood by those concerned about
education's future, and that is the record that will be demonstrated by
the three charts that I am inserting in the Record at this point.
The History of House Republican Efforts to Attack Education--1994
Through 2000
Across the nation Republican Congressional Candidates are
giving speeches and running ads pretending to be friends of
education. Those speeches and ads fly in the face of the
historical record of the past six years. That record
demonstrates that education has been one of the central
targets of House Republican efforts to cut federal
investments in programs essential for building America's
future in order to provide large tax cuts they have been
promising their constituents.
Six years ago in their drive to take control of the House
of Representatives, the Republican Leaders led by Newt
Gingrich produced a so-called ``Contract with America'' which
they claimed would balance the budget while at the same time
making room for huge tax cuts. They indicated that one of the
ways they would do so was by abolishing four departments of
the federal government. Eliminating the U.S. Department of
Education was their number one goal. They also wanted they
said to eliminate the Departments of Energy, Commerce and
HUD.
Immediately upon taking over the Congress in 1995 they
proposed cuts below existing appropriations in a rescission
bill, HR 1158. That bill passed the House on March 16, 1995
reducing federal expenditures by nearly $12 billion.
Education programs accounted for $1.7 billion of the total.
While the budget of the Department of Education totaled only
1.6% of federal expenditures in fiscal 1995, it contributed
14% to the spending reductions in the House Republican
package. The package was adopted with all but six House
Republicans voting in favor. (See Roll Call #251 for the
104th Congress, 1st session--Congressional Record, March 16,
1995, page H3302)
Next, legislation (HR 1883) was introduced which called for
``eliminating the Department of Education and redefining the
federal role in education.'' The legislation was cosponsored
by more than half of all House Republicans including as
original cosponsors, current Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority
Leader Dick Armey, and Majority Whip Tom Delay. (See
Attachment A)
The desire to eliminate the Department of Education was
stated explicitly in both the Report that accompanied the
Republican Budget Resolution passed by the House and in the
Conference Report on the Budget that accompanied the final
product agreed to by both House and Senate Republicans. The
Conference Report for H. Con. Res. 76 (the FY 1996 Budget
Resolution) states flatly, ``In the area of education, the
House assumes the termination of the Department of
Education.''
That FY96 Budget Resolution not only proposed the adoption
of legislation to terminate the Department organizationally,
but
[[Page H8609]]
put in place a spending plan to eliminate funding for a
major portion of the Department's activities and programs
in hopes of partially achieving the goal of elimination
even if the President refused to sign a formal termination
for the Department. The Conference Agreement adopted on
June 29, 1995 proposed cuts in funding for Function 500,
the area of the budget containing all federal education
programs or $17.6 billion or 34% below the amount needed
to keep even with inflation over the six-year period
starting in Fiscal 1996. The House passed Resolution had
proposed even larger cuts. Every House Republican except
one voted for both the House Resolution and the Conference
Report. (See Roll Calls #345 and 458 for the 104th
Congress, 1st session--Congressional Record, May 18, 1995,
page H5309 and June 29, 1995, page H6594)
That Budget Resolution established a framework for passage
of the 13 appropriation bills. The Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill, which contains the vast majority of
funds that go to local school districts, was the hardest hit
by that resolution. The Fiscal 1996 appropriations bill for
labor, health, and education was adopted by the House on
August 4th 1995. It slashed funding from the $25 billion
level that had been originally approved for the Department in
fiscal 1995 to $20.8 billion for the coming year. This $4.2
billion or 17% cut below prior year levels was even larger
when inflation was considered and was passed in the face of
information indicating that total school enrollment in the
United States was increasing by about three quarters of a
million students a year. The programs affected by these cuts
included Title I for disadvantaged children (reduced by $1.1
billion below the prior year,) teacher training, (reduced by
$251 million,) vocational education (reduced by $273
million,) Safe and Drug Free Schools (reduced by $241,) and
Goals 2000 to raise student performance (reduced by $361
million). Republicans voted in favor of the bill, 213 to 18.
(See Roll Call #626 for the 104th Congress, 1st session--
Congressional Record, August 4, 1995, page H8420) The bill
was opposed by virtually every national organization
representing parents, teachers, school administrators, and
local school boards.
The Republican Leadership of the House was so determined to
force the President to sign that legislation and other
similar appropriations that they were willing to see the
government shut down twice to, in the words of one Republican
Leader, ``force the President to his knees.'' Speaker
Gingrich said, ``On October 1, if we don't appropriate, there
is no money. . . You can veto whatever you want to. But as of
October 1, there is no government. . . We're going to go over
the liberal Democratic part of the government and then say to
them: `We could last 60 days, 90 days, 120 days, five years,
a century.' There's a lot of stuff we don't care if it's ever
funded.'' (Rocky Mountain News, June 3, 1995) It is clear
that the Labor-HHS-Education bill, and education funding in
particular, was at the heart of the controversy that resulted
in those government shutdowns. Cutting education was an issue
that Republicans felt so strongly about that they literally
were willing to see the government shut down in an attempt to
achieve this goal. Speaker Gingrich said, ``I don't care what
the price is. I don't care if we have no executive offices,
and no bonds for 60 days--not this time.'' (Washington Post,
September 22, 1995) House Republican Whip Tom DeLay said,
``We are going to fund only those programs we want to fund. .
. We're in charge. We don't have to negotiate with the
Senate; we don't have to negotiate with the Democrats.''
(Baltimore Sun, January 8, 1996)
When the government shut down, the public reacted strongly
against Republican House Leadership hard-headedness and that
led to the eventual signing of the Conference Agreement on
Labor-HHS-Education funding as part of an omnibus
appropriations package on April 26 of 1996, more than halfway
through the fiscal year. That action came after 9
continuing resolutions and those two government shutdowns.
That agreement restored about half of the cuts below prior
year funding that had been pushed through by the
Republican Majority, raising the original House Republican
figure of $20.8 billion for education to $22.8 billion.
Later in 1996 the Republican House Caucus organized another
attempt to cut education funding below prior year levels in
the fiscal 1997 Labor-HHS-Education bill. On July 12, 1996
the House adopted the bill with Republicans voting 209 to 22
in favor or passage (See Roll Call #313, Congressional
Record, July 11, 1996, page H7373.) The bill cut Education by
$54 million below the levels agreed to for fiscal 1996 and
$2.8 billion below the President's request. During the debate
on that bill Republicans also voted (227-2) to kill an
amendment specifically aimed at restoring $1.2 billion in
education funding (See Roll Call #303, Congessional Record,
July 11, 1996, page H7330).
As the fall and election of 1996 began to approach, the
Republican commitment to cut education began to be
overshadowed by their desire to adjourn Congress and go home
to campaign. As a result, the President and Democrats in
Congress forced them to accept an education package that was
more than $3.6 billion above House passed levels.
1997 brought a one-year respite from Republican efforts to
squeeze education. For one year, a welcome bipartisan
approach was followed and the appropriation that passed the
House and the final conference agreement were extremely close
to the amounts requested by the President and the Department
of Education.
Conflict between the two parties over education funding
erupted again in 1998 when the President requested $31.2
billion for the Department for fiscal 1999. In July, the
House Appropriations Committee reported on a party line vote
a Labor-HHS-Education bill that cut the President's education
budget by more than $660 million. But the bill remained in
legislative limbo until after the beginning of the next
fiscal year. Then on October 2, 1998 Republicans voted with
only six dissenting votes to bring the bill to the floor.
(See Roll Call #476, Congressional Record, October 2, 1998,
page H9314). The leadership then reversed itself on its
desire to call up the bill and refused to bring it to the
floor. The House Republican Leadership finally grudgingly
agreed to negotiate higher levels for education so they could
return home and campaign. The White House and Democrats in
Congress were able to force them to accept a funding level
for education that was $2.6 billion above the House bill.
Last year, in 1999, House Republican Leaders again directed
their Appropriators to report a Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriation bill that cut education spending below the
President's request and below the level of the prior year.
The FY2000 bill reported by the Appropriations Committee on a
straight party line vote funded education programs at nearly
$200 million below the FY 1999 level. The bill was almost
$1.4 billion below the President's request. Included in the
cuts below requested levels were reductions in Title I grants
to local school districts for education of disadvantaged
students ($264 million,) after school programs ($300
million,) education reform and accountability efforts ($491
million) and improvement of educational technology resources
($301 million.) Because inadequate funding threatened their
ability to pass the bill, House Republican Leaders never
brought it to the House floor. After weeks of pressure from
House Democrats they ordered a separate bill that had
been agreed to with Senate Republican Leaders to be
brought to the House floor. The bill contained
significantly more education funding than the original
House bill but still cut the President's request for class
size reduction by $200 million, after-school programs by
$300 million, title I by almost $200 million and teacher
quality programs by $35 million. The bill was opposed by
the Committee for Education Funding which represents 97
national organizations interested in education including
parent and teacher groups, school boards, and school
administrators. It was adopted by a vote of 218 to 211
with House Republicans voting 214 to 7 in favor. (See Roll
Call 549, Congressional Record, October 28, 1999, page
H11120) It was also promptly vetoed by the President.
After further negotiations, they agreed on November 18th
to add nearly $700 million more, which we were requesting
to educational programs.
This year the President proposed a $4.5 billion increase
for education programs in the FY2001 budget. The bill
reported by House Republicans cut the President's request by
$2.9 billion. Cuts below the request included $400 million
from Title I, $400 million from after school programs, $1
billion for improving teacher quality and $1.3 billion for
repair of dilapidated school buildings. It was adopted by a
vote of 217-214 with House Republicans voting 213 to 7 in
favor. (See Roll Call #273, Congressional Record, June 14,
2000, page H4436)
When the FY2001 Labor-HHS-Education bill was sent to
conference a motion to instruct Conferees to go to the higher
Senate levels for education and other programs was offered.
It also instructed conferees to permit language insuring that
funds provided or reducing class size and repairing school
buildings was used for those purposes. It was defeated 207 to
212 with Republicans voting 208 to 4 in opposition. (See Roll
Call 415, Congressional Record, July 19, 2000, page H6563)
In summary, the record clearly shows that over the past six
years House Republicans set the elimination of the Department
of Education as a primary goal. Failing that, they attempted
to reduce education funding to the maximum extent possible.
In every year since they have had control of the House of
Representatives they have attempted to cut the President's
request for education funding. Appropriations bills passed by
House Republicans would have cut a total of $14.6 million
from presidential request for education funding. In three of
the six years that they have controlled the House, they have
actually attempted to cut education funding below prior year
levels despite steady increases in school enrollment and the
annual increase in costs to local school districts of proving
quality class room instruction.
The education budget cuts have not been directed at
Washington bureaucrats as some Republicans have tried to
argue but mainly at programs that send money directly to
local school districts to hire teachers and improve
curriculum. Programs such as Title I, After School, Safe and
Drug Free Schools, Class Size Reduction, and Educational
Technology Assistance all send well over 95% of their funds
directly to local school districts. While zealots in the
Republican Conference drove much of this agenda it is clear
that they could not have succeeded without the repeated
assistance from dozens of Republicans moderates who attempt
to portray themselves as friends of education.
The one redeeming aspect of the Republican record on
education over the last six
[[Page H8610]]
years is that in most years they failed to achieve the cuts
that they spent most of each year fighting to impose. When a
coalition between the Democrats in Congress and the President
made it clear that the bills containing these cuts would be
vetoed and that the Republicans by themselves could not
override the vetoes, legislation that was far more
favorable to education was finally adopted. For Republican
members to attempt to take credit for that fact is in
effect bragging on their own political ineptitude. The
question concerned Americans must ask is: What will happen
if the Republican find a future opportunity to deliver on
their six-year agenda? They may eventually become more
skillful in their efforts. They may at some point have a
larger majority in one or both Houses or they may serve
under a President that will be more amenable to their
agenda. All of these prospects should be very troubling to
those who feel that local school districts can not do the
job that the country needs without great assistance from
the federal government.
This is not an issue of local versus federal control.
Almost 93% of the money spent for elementary and secondary
education at the local level is spent in accordance with the
wishes of state and local governments. But there are national
implications to failing schools in any part of the country.
The federal government has an obligation to try to help
disseminate information about what does and does not work in
educating children, and it has an obligation to respond to
critical needs by defining and focusing on national
priorities. And that is what the other 7% of educational
funding in this country does. Education is indeed primarily a
local responsibility, but it must be a top priority at all
levels--federal, state, and local--or we will not get the job
done.
The House Republican candidates now shout loudly that they
can be trusted to support education, but their record over
the six years speaks louder than their words. Their record
shows that in three of the last six years, House Republicans
tried to cut education $5.5 billion below previous levels and
$14.6 billion presidential requests. It shows that the more
than $15.6 billion that has been restored came only after
Democrats in Congress and in the White House demanded
restoration. That is the record that must be understood by
those concerned about education's future.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION APPROPRIATION CUTS COMPARED TO
PREVIOUS YEAR
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior House House
year level cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 95 Rescission.......................... 25,074 23,440 -1,635
FY 96 Labor-HHS-Education................. 25,074 20,797 -4,277
FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education................. 22,810 22,756 -54
FY 00 Labor-HHS-Education................. 33,520 33,321 -199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Funding, Minority Staff, House Appropriations Committee.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION CUTS BELOW PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Percent
Request level House cut cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 96 Labor-HHS-Education...... 25,804 20,797 -5,007 -19
FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education...... 25,561 22,756 -2,805 -11
FY 98 Labor-HHS-Education...... 29,522 29,331 -191 -1
FY 99 Labor-HHS-Education...... 31,185 30,523 -662 -2
FY 00 Labor-HHS-Education...... 34,712 33,321 -1,391 -4
FY 01 Labor-HHS-Education...... 40,095 37,142 -2,953 -7
----------------------------------------
Total FY96 to FY01........ 186,879 173,870 -13,009 -7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Funding, Minority Staff, House Appropriations Committee.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--EDUCATION FUNDING RESTORED BY DEMOCRATS
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Conf Percent
level agreement Restoration increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 95 Rescission............ 23,440 24,497 1,057 5
FY 96 Labor-HHS-Education... 20,797 22,810 2,013 10
FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education... 22,756 26,324 3,568 16
FY 98 Labor-HHS-Education... 29,331 29,741 410 1
FY 99 Labor-HHS-Education... 30,523 33,149 2,626 9
FY 00 Labor-HHS-Education... 33,321 35,703 2,382 7
FY 01 Labor-HHS-Education... 37,142 40,751 3,609 10
-------------------------------------------
Total FY95 to FY01...... 197,310 212,975 15,665 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Funding, Minority Staff, House Appropriations Committee.
____________________