Every Child Achieves Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
Mr. President, first I commend my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, for his amendment, and I appreciate the discussion between him and the chair of the committee.
I think that getting rid of these inversions is very important. I am surprised people on the other side don't want to do it, but so be it.
Funding this program is the most important way, and if we could come up with a bipartisan way to get the funding, that will help educate millions of America's young children, and that is why I support this amendment so strongly.
Educating our children is not a sprint, it is a marathon. No one just gets up one day and decides to run a marathon. They plan, they train, and they eat right. We can avoid the most common problems if we start our kids out early with the right training, not just for some but for every student.
The research has shown that children who attend high-quality preschool programs are more likely to be prepared for school and graduate on time. They get better jobs. They are less likely to wind up in the criminal justice system or to rely on our social safety net. All too often in this body we do what many groups, corporations, and others in America do, we are unwilling to think of the long term. We may be spending a dollar today on this program, but we are going to save tens of dollars for each dollar we spend over the long run. All the studies show it. So having quality pre-K programs for kids who need it is a great investment in America. Yet millions of middle-class and low-income children don't have access to these programs that would provide an immense benefit to them and our country.
In short, pre-K should not be a luxury for the wealthy. Every child, no matter where they live or how much money their parents make, should be able to start their education in pre-K. It is not only for the good of them and their families but for the good of America. Senator Casey's amendment helps us get there by helping States fund high-quality prekindergarten for 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families. It specifies that all preschools be inclusive of children with disabilities and addresses the need for increased funding to support their needs.
As I said, there is nothing wrong with doing inversions. Getting rid of them is the right thing to do, but if there is another way to go, I am certainly open to it, and I know Senator Casey, our leader on this amendment, is too.
By the way, we will see where the pay-for is. It is the kind of win-win that everyone can get behind, and so I hope my colleagues will come together and fully pay for this. If we can't do it with inversions, which I think is right--and I believe most Americans would think closing the inversion loophole is right--let's find something else.
In New York, there are cities and communities that are already making the investment to ensure access to pre-K for their children. It is working. But at a time when budgets are tight, they shouldn't have to do it alone. Under this amendment, New York will receive the support it needs to serve an additional 137,000 kids over 5 years. States across the country would be able to help a similar number of their schoolchildren, all without costing the Federal Government a single plug nickel.
As we debate how to best ensure students graduate ready for college or careers, we are doing a disservice if we ignore the need to invest in early education.
I thank my friend Senator Casey for offering this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote on it in the original form. Stand up against these inversions, but if that vote fails, to have a different proposal would be a good thing to do, although I think we should have a vote on this particular amendment first.
Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment, with the indulgence of my colleagues, on the title I cuts and the amendment Senator Burr has offered with respect to title I funding, which of course provides assistance to low-income districts and schools that educate a high number of low-income children.
We cannot forget that title I is the largest source of Federal education funding and applies to a wide swath of school districts and includes many suburban and middle-class communities as well as school districts in our cities where poverty is concentrated. You might say: Well, this only affects the poor. It doesn't. If a school is going to lose its title I funding, they may have to do it and spend the money on their own and take away from science or afterschool programs or sports or something else. It affects everybody. Even though title I, since the days of Lyndon Johnson, was aimed at poor kids, it is going to hurt everybody if we make the kind of drastic cuts in so many school districts that the Senator from North Carolina has proposed.
What Senator Burr's amendment would do would not increase funding, which is what we usually do around here when we want to try to change formulas, as we should. He simply robs Peter to pay Paul. He takes away money from a needy school in one State to give to a needy school in another State.
According to the Congressional Research Service, over 9,600 school districts across the country will lose title I funding under this amendment. These schools count on title I funds year in, year out. They budget for it, and without the funding, they could be forced to lay off teachers, cut afterschool programs, and make other dramatic cuts. So it is no answer. Redistributing a limited pie is no way to make Federal policy.
One of my disappointments with this bill is that every American supports increased funding in education, particularly in things like title I. The bill doesn't do it.
At a time when America is competing against China, Japan, Europe, and the world, we are saying we shouldn't help with education, which is the ladder up for so many millions of American families, but we are not. But then to say, while keeping the funding flat, we should take huge amounts of money--$300 million from my State--and give it to other States to help the poor, when in fact it doesn't even require that that money goes to the needy, that doesn't make much sense, in my opinion, and that is not the way to legislate.
We should have a real conversation about our Federal investment in education, one that recognizes that all of our school districts with low-income student populations would benefit from additional resources, one in which my colleagues across the aisle are fond of saying, in a different context, we are not picking winners and losers. I think we would agree that all of our low-income school districts need and deserve extra help.
In conclusion, education is the cornerstone of the American dream. We have to keep that American dream alive, and there is no better way than in funding education. I know my colleagues believe that.
I hope everyone will join us across the aisle in opposing Senator Burr's amendment to change the title I formula without increased Federal support for our schools.
With that, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source