[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4342-S4343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I find the discussion of the Senators from 
Massachusetts and Illinois and Minnesota most interesting. It reminds 
me of that old story of the attorney up in northern New Hampshire who 
received a report from one of the logging camps he represented. There 
were seven people in this camp, five men and two women. The report came 
in that 50 percent of the women were marrying 20 percent of the men.
  The numbers which have been thrown out here are, to say the least, a 
bit disoriented, dysfunctional, and inaccurate. They certainly don't 
reflect this President's commitment to education. In fact, I don't 
think anybody can seriously question this President's commitment to 
education. He not only has made it a priority, he has essentially made 
it his No. 1 domestic priority after the issue of fighting terrorism, 
which of course is our Nation's No. 1 issue right now.
  It was under his leadership that we passed a landmark piece of 
legislation in which obviously the Senator from Massachusetts played a 
large role, as did the Senator who is presiding at the present time. 
That legislation essentially reorganized the way we approach 
legislation at the Federal level as it affects elementary and secondary 
school education.
  Basically, it took a large number of programs and merged them 
together and turned that money back to the States with more 
flexibility, the purpose of which was to give the States and the local 
communities specifically more dollars with fewer strings and, in 
exchange for giving them more dollars with fewer strings, expect more 
for those dollars and have standards which have to be met to show that 
that has occurred; in other words, specifically saying, we don't expect 
any children to be left behind.
  The Federal role in elementary and secondary education is a fairly 
narrow role; 92 to 93 percent of the money comes from the local 
communities or the States; they have the priority role in education. 
The Federal role in education has picked two targeted areas on which to 
focus. No. 1 is low-income kids, making sure they are not left behind. 
No. 2 is special needs kids, special education kids. This ESEA bill 
which we passed, the No Child Left Behind bill, essentially said we 
will give the local communities more money with fewer strings, fewer 
categorical programs; but in exchange for that, we will expect that 
especially low-income kids have a better opportunity to learn and that 
they are not left behind; we will ask the States to set up standards 
which test that.
  What did the President do? He didn't give them less money. He gave 
more money into this program. If you look at the chart the Senator from 
Massachusetts held up, you will see that the increases in the Federal 
commitment to education have been massive over the last 2 years: 19 
percent over the base 2 years ago; 16 percent on top of the 19-percent 
base; and then 3 percent on top of that, with the practical effect 
being that the dollar increase has been

[[Page S4343]]

absolutely huge, as has the percentage increase for education.
  In fact, what the President did was consolidate that money into 
basically a more focused stream so that it goes back to the States in a 
more effective way. I have charts to reflect this, but I am not sure 
they are here. Hopefully, they will be arriving soon.
  In any event, if you look at what we did, what the President did, you 
see he put the money into title I. Yes, some of these other programs--
they held up five or six different programs--have been zero-funded. 
They should have been, because they were a little bits of money tossed 
around for the purposes of some Member of this legislative body getting 
out a press release.
  What the President said was: Let's not do that. Let's put this money 
into one focused stream and have those dollars flow directly back to 
the communities. The practical effect of that is that the title I 
dollars over the last 2 years, the President's increase in title I 
spending, the money going to low-income kids, has seen a $2.5 billion 
increase. If you take all the money that went into title I, all the 
increases during the administration of President Clinton, which was 8 
years, not 2 years, his increases only amounted to $2 billion in that 
account.
  So in 2 years the President has exceeded by 20 percent the amount of 
money that went in as increases over 8 years into the Clinton accounts. 
This concept that the President has not funded education is absolutely 
fallacious.
  You could hold up another chart on this relative to special education 
which would show the exact same thing. In fact, it would show that 
President Bush has made a stronger commitment to special education than 
President Clinton ever did during his entire term in office. President 
Bush in the last 2 years, in both of those years, has increased special 
education by $1 billion each year. President Clinton, of his entire 8 
years, in only 1 year, the last year when he was basically forced into 
it, did he increase special education by $1 billion. In every other 
year, for the 7 prior years, his increase in the special education 
amount was actually negligible.
  As we know, special education has a huge impact on the local tax 
base. The failure of the Federal Government to pay its fair share of 
special education has been one of the real problems local communities 
have had.

  President Bush has made, from the start, a major commitment to 
funding special education, increasing that funding by over $2 billion, 
$1 billion in each year of the last 2 years and, as a result, has lived 
up to a commitment he made during the campaign which was that he was 
going to move towards full funding of special education. This concept 
that the President is not funding education really doesn't hold water.
  Then there was some discussion of postsecondary activity and this 
consolidation issue, this ``bloody shirt'' that the other side 
continues to draw across the floor. Let's talk about a little bit of 
history. This concept was reported as a concept, as a trial balloon in 
the New York Times. That is where the issue comes from.
  Somebody in OMB, which is not the education policy arm of the 
administration, threw out the idea: We have to pay for the Pell grant 
shortfall which is $1.3 billion. One way to do that would be to 
disallow consolidation of student loans. That is one of the many ways 
we could do it.
  It was reported in the New York Times as a concept. It was a trial 
balloon. The education arm of the administration, which is the 
Education Department, immediately rejected it. The OMB was told to 
forget it. In fact, the OMB called around the Hill to the staff of the 
appropriate committees and members of the appropriate committees and 
said they would not pursue it. Yet for 3 weeks now we have heard it as 
if it were a policy. How outrageous. I refer to the approach the other 
side is taking as the thought police, where, if you have an idea, you 
just beat it into the ground, like those mullahs who run around with 
sticks and beat people if they have ideas. This idea doesn't even exist 
as a policy. Yet we continue to hear about it.
  What does exist as a policy, however, is what this administration has 
done in the area of postsecondary education, which is huge in the way 
of funding. The largest increase in Pell grants in the history of this 
country has occurred under this administration. More students, 500,000 
more students, will get Pell grants this year than got them in the last 
year of the Clinton administration. This administration has committed 
huge dollars into this program. The rate of interest which a student 
will pay on their student loans will drop to below 2 percent by the 
beginning of next year--below 2 percent--as a result of this 
administration supporting language which allowed those loans to be 
reorganized in a way that students could get a less than 2-percent rate 
of interest on their student loans--incredibly low-cost money to help 
kids go to school, huge benefits to students trying to go to graduate 
school. And equally important, the tax bill which passed this Congress 
and which a number of Members on the other side did vote for but nobody 
who just spoke voted for, the tax bill which passed this Congress gave 
a massive increase, something in the vicinity, I think, of $30 billion 
of incentive money to help parents fund their children's education in 
the expansion of the Coverdell accounts, the expansion of the 
deductibility of interest for student loans, and a variety of other 
initiatives--teacher tax credits for people who stay to go on to teach, 
a supplemental payment there--all sorts of initiatives which 
dramatically increased the funding available to assist parents who are 
trying to put their children through school.

  So to come to the floor of the Senate, as some of the Members have 
from the other side for literally 3 or 4 weeks now, to berate the 
administration for the consolidation proposal, which was never a 
proposal, which was simply a trial balloon, and to berate the 
administration for not funding education is, in my opinion, tilting at 
windmills by the other side and trying to set up straw men because the 
issues hold no water on the basis of fact.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Ohio 
letting me go forward, and I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

                          ____________________