[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1755-1757]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EDUCATION FUNDING

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the President presented to Congress a 
budget. It is the annual process or ritual where the President makes 
the first move, presenting a budget, and then Congress responds. The 
House and the Senate come up with a budget resolution within the 
confines of the President's spending and decide how to spend money. We 
are now at that phase. But I want to say a word about what the 
President suggested and what we are hearing from across the Rotunda 
from the House Republicans.
  The President understands we have two challenges as a nation. The 
first is to create more jobs because we have too many people out of 
work. Secondly, we need to reduce our deficit. It seems they are cross-
purposes, but they do not have to be.
  The President is trying to chart a course that moves us forward in a 
responsible way, cutting spending where it will not hurt economic 
recovery and growth and investing with the Federal funds we will spend 
in programs that count. He has talked about an agenda for more 
education, more innovation, more infrastructure, and economic growth. 
That is the appropriate balance.
  However, when we look at what the Republicans have done in the House 
of Representatives, we see they have ignored that balance. They believe 
just cutting spending by itself, without concern about the impact, is 
best for America's future, but it defies our common human experience. 
If we said to our family just starting out: There are going to be tough 
economic times ahead; there are some things we will have to do without, 
but is there one thing we want to make certain we invest in, most 
families would say: Well,

[[Page 1756]]

we want to get the kids educated. We want to make sure our children go 
to school because that is their only chance. If they don't get a good 
education, their lives are not going to be as full. They will not make 
as great a contribution. The same thing is true at the national level. 
What the President has suggested is, we need sound investment in 
education.
  Unfortunately, the House Republicans, in their approach, cut some of 
the most basic programs when it comes to education. The President 
understands--and I think all of us appreciate--the United States has 
slipped from first to No. 6 in the world in the percentage of high 
school graduates going to college. How can we be more competitive in 
this century? How can we expect to attract good businesses and the 
right kind of inventors and innovators who will spark growth in our 
economy if we don't have more of our students attending and graduating 
from college?
  We have also slipped from 1st to 12th in the percentage of people 
holding college degrees. America better wake up and look around the 
world. I recently spoke at a commencement for a law school in Chicago, 
and I was surprised when it came to the master's degrees in law. Those 
are advanced degrees. Anyone with that degree has been in school at 
least 20 years of their life. When I looked at the graduates with 
master's degrees from a law school in the city of Chicago, more than 
half of them were women from China. I thought to myself: I never would 
have dreamed this. During my time--and this goes back quite a few 
years--there weren't that many women in law school. Now they make up 
the majority of law students. But who would have guessed that Chinese 
women would have the majority of graduate degrees from a law school in 
Chicago? Wake up, America. That is what is happening.
  China, India, and other countries are focused on promoting education 
for those with the skills to lead their countries in the future. Can we 
do anything less? Our Nation's strength lies in its ability to 
outcompete and outinnovate every other country in the world. We can't 
do it if we are not preparing the next generation of scientists, 
entrepreneurs, and innovators.
  Let's take a look at what the House Republicans did. They are 
promising we can cut off investments in education, even as quickly as 
the remainder of this fiscal year, and still prosper. I question that. 
They released their continuing resolution for the fiscal year on Friday 
night. Their proposal cuts $4.9 billion in education programs from 
prekindergarten through college, the money that helps schools teach and 
helps students get to college. Here is what they cut: $1.1 billion from 
Head Start, a program that helps low-income, disadvantaged kids enter 
kindergarten ready to learn. The Presiding Officer has seen these Head 
Start programs, and I have too. We think to ourselves: Where would 
these kids be without it? Many of them come from single-parent 
families, and many of their parents are struggling, making basic 
minimum wage and hardly any more, and this is where they send their 
kids during the day so the kids, at an early age--3, 4, and 5 years 
old--are exposed to socialization, getting to know other children, 
having mentors and teachers in the room, and learning the basics. Then, 
when the day comes when they are ready to go to kindergarten, they are 
truly prepared and ready to go. The House Republicans' cut in Head 
Start would drop 127,000 low-income preschoolers from the program--over 
5,000 in Illinois. That means cutting the rolls by 20 percent and 
laying off 55,000 teachers and staff. So is that where we start to 
build for the future, by taking these children out of the Head Start 
classrooms and laying off 55,000 teachers? What does that say about the 
future of those children? Will it be as good or worse? I think we know 
the answer to that.
  Under the House Republicans' proposal, $700 million would be cut from 
schools serving more than 1 million disadvantaged students. We 
understand, because we are testing, that kids who go to school and who 
happen to be from lower income families, disadvantaged families, many 
times don't do as well. We know it. We see it in the test scores. We 
try to put money into the districts, for what purpose? To reduce the 
size of the class, provide extra help, including mentoring and teaching 
after school, and give these students who would otherwise fall behind 
and might drop out a chance to succeed. Well, the Republicans say: 
There is an area to cut. They take $700 million out and end up firing 
10,000 teachers in these programs--over 280 of those from schools in my 
State.
  Innovative programs that are working today to move our States toward 
reform in education would be seriously cut. Race to the Top gave to our 
Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, incentives of millions of dollars 
to offer to States if they will do things that are bold, innovative, 
and successful in improving education. It is interesting that the first 
two States to be awarded, if I am not mistaken, were Delaware and 
Tennessee. It is pretty clear the Department of Education wasn't 
looking for any political agenda here; they were looking for States 
truly committed to reform. I am sorry Illinois didn't make the cut. One 
would have thought the President's State might have had an advantage. 
We didn't make it. In fairness, there are things we could have done 
that would have improved our chances. But other States changed the 
laws, moved forward, to try to make sure there is accountability in 
education as well as good results.
  What did the House Republicans think about that? Well, they think we 
should cut that, dramatically cut that program.
  They would cut Pell grants by $845 per student. What does that mean? 
I know the Senator now presiding over the Senate, similar to myself, 
has met many of the students receiving Pell grants. A lot of these kids 
come from families where no one has ever gone on to college. Many of 
them come from low-income families who can't give them any financial 
support, and many of them struggle to try to stay in school and still 
take a job and earn enough money to get by. The Pell grant helps them. 
The Pell grant says: If you are from a low-income family, we are going 
to give you a helping hand. To say we are going to cut that grant means 
many of these students will not be able to continue in school. They 
will quit. Some may return at a later time; many will not. We will have 
wasted an opportunity for young, ambitious students who use the Pell 
grants and student loans to have an education that can lead somewhere.
  I might say, in fairness, that I know a little bit about this subject 
because I went to college and law school borrowing money from the 
Federal Government. Had I not been able to do that, I am not sure I 
would be standing here today. It gave me my chance. I still had to go 
to classes and take the tests and earn the grades and eventually pass 
the bar exam, but the fact is that money made all the difference in the 
world to me. There was no way my widowed mother was ever going to pay 
for my education in those days. She couldn't do it.
  That was my story. Now repeat that story millions of times across 
America and ask ourselves: What are the House Republicans thinking? 
They are going to cut Pell grants for these students who are struggling 
to go through college? Why would we do that when 80 percent of our 
Nation's fastest growing jobs require higher education? In Illinois, an 
estimated 61,000 students are going to see their Pell grants 
significantly reduced or eliminated.
  The House Republicans also want to eliminate $1.5 billion in grants 
to States for job training. When we think about the number of 
unemployed in America today and how few of them will be able to return 
to the same job they left, we understand they need new skills, new 
training. They have to move into new areas of opportunity. Job training 
offers that. The Republicans eliminate it.
  Now take a look at what the President does. The President makes a 
dramatic cut in spending, freezing our spending, reducing our spending 
by over $400 billion over the next 5 years, and bringing domestic 
discretionary

[[Page 1757]]

spending in America as a percentage of our gross domestic product down 
to a level lower than it was in the 1950s under President Eisenhower. 
So he calls for sacrifice, as we should. But the President understands 
the importance of education. His budget includes $8.1 billion for Head 
Start to serve nearly 1 million children and families. It includes $1.3 
billion to support almost 2 million children and families through the 
childcare development block grant program.
  The President's budget also includes $26.8 billion, an increase of 
about 7 percent, for elementary and secondary education, focused on 
raising standards, encouraging innovation, and rewarding success.
  Last week, the heads of many school districts in Illinois came to see 
me. They are struggling. We can understand why. With real estate prices 
going down and values going down, property tax receipts are not what 
they used to be. Our State is in bankruptcy. It doesn't have the money 
to send back to school districts. A small amount--about 5 percent that 
comes from the Federal Government--is important to them. If Republicans 
have their way, that amount will be reduced. The President tries to 
maintain that contribution from the Federal level to help local school 
districts.
  There is something else the President does which I think is essential 
to better education. He invests $185 million for a new Presidential 
teaching fellows program which would provide scholarships to talented 
and aspiring teachers who commit to teaching for 3 years in a high-
needs school. It also invests $80 million to improve teacher training 
in the STEM subjects--science, technology, engineering, and math.
  I think most would agree the success of an education depends, first, 
in my case and many others, on strong family support and encouragement 
but also on the quality of the teacher in the classroom. We want to 
make sure we have the best teachers so we have the best students, the 
best graduates who are then in the best position to compete in the 
years ahead.
  The President's budget maintains a maximum Pell grant award of $5,550 
per year, ensuring nearly 8 million students across the country can 
continue to pursue a college degree.
  There is also money in the President's budget for worker training, 
which we desperately need.
  There is also an investment of $1.4 billion in competitive programs 
to bring about reform in education, including the Early Learning 
Challenge Fund, spurring States to improve quality; the new Race to the 
Top, bringing resources to school districts willing to make reforms; 
and a new First in the World competition, which encourages colleges and 
universities to demonstrate success in graduating more high-needs 
students and preparing them for employment.
  There are skeptics who believe that no matter what the government 
does, it is not going to create jobs or create opportunity in America. 
I think we can go too far in selling the government's role, and we 
shouldn't. But we can understand in education that the government's 
role does make a difference.
  I try to calculate in my mind. It has been barely 50 or 54 years 
since we made a decision in Congress that we were going to invest in 
student loans to help young people go to college--the same program that 
helped me go to college. It happened after Sputnik was launched and we 
were concerned about the Russian effort to put satellites in outer 
space, followed by missiles, followed by a Cold War face-off that we 
might experience. So we said we need more engineers and scientists and 
more college grads. We made the investment and it worked. We not only 
made it to the Moon, but we moved the American economy forward to lead 
the world in the last half of the 20th century. It was no accident. 
Part of it was the investment of our government in education for our 
citizens. The President believes we have to keep that commitment. I 
agree with him.
  I think the House Republicans have gone too far in their cuts. I 
think they start with the skepticism that government cannot do anything 
right. Many of them were the beneficiaries of college student loans 
through the government, and they have forgotten. They shouldn't. 
Families across America count on it, and we should too. We have to make 
sure we have a strong budget that cuts deficits--and I agree we must--
but maintains essential economic investment. Congress needs to enact a 
plan that will lead to fiscal sustainability over the long term if we 
want to ensure a strong economic future. The President has provided an 
excellent starting point in that conversation.
  Madam President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent 
that the time consumed in any quorum call during the period of morning 
business be charged equally to both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________