The Economy and Education

THE ECONOMY AND EDUCATION

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we came back to Washington to be sworn in and begin a new Congress, and the President traveled to my State of Illinois, to Chicago, to announce his proposal for an economic stimulus. We need it; we need it desperately. For the last 2 years, we have languished. Our economy has gone from bad to worst.

The President inherited a budget surplus, at least on paper, that gave us some opportunities to pay down the debt of the Nation. Instead of borrowing money from the economy to finance our Government, we were actually not borrowing at the same rate. I am careful with my rhetoric because I am being followed by Senator Hollings who is the guru and past master when it comes to the questions of deficits and surplus. He will quickly disabuse me of my notions if I am wrong. He will concede, as I hope I would as well, that our budget situation today is worse than it was when President Bush took office in terms of the deficits we are generating.

That deficit situation reflects three situations, some of which we control and some we do not. No one could have anticipated the negative impact September 11 had on our economy and the increased expenses of Government for military and defense efforts. That is something for which no President can be held accountable because it was totally unexpected. That situation has added to our deficit.

The continued recession we are going through has made the deficit even worse: Fewer tax revenues going into Washington, fewer dollars available for spending on programs and a deficit as a result.

The third piece, though, has to fall on the President's lap. He came to us and said: I want to cut taxes, and if I cut taxes, this economy will turn around, trust me. The majority of the Senate and the House did—I was not one of them—and they were wrong.

The President's tax cut proposal did not invigorate the economy; it added to our deficit. So that red ink pool gets deeper and deeper. We are deeper in debt and the economy is still languishing.

The President came back this week and said: I have a brand new idea: More of the same. Let me cut taxes on the highest income people in America, and I swear to you, America, this time it is going to work; if you will just give the richest people in America a substantial tax break, we know they will do the right thing; we know they will invigorate the economy.

Isn't it interesting what the public reaction has been? CNN had a call-in and said to the American people: Do you buy the President's approach? Do you want to try this again or would you rather go for a different approach suggested by the Democrats, that we have a smaller more manageable stimulus package that helps us this year immediately and is focused on helping the majority of Americans, not just 1 percent of the wage earners, the wealthiest?

[Page S100]

The CNN poll came back. Two to one, the people calling in said: We prefer the more managed approach, the smaller stimulus that does not add to the deficit and, frankly, tries to help all taxpayers, not just the wealthiest among us. Two to one, people rejected President Bush's failed economic policy which he is trying to bring back to us again.

Let me tell you what is interesting, too. President Bush suggests that in the course of this economic stimulus we can take out of the Treasury during the next 10 years—let me get the number correct—$676 billion. Most of it is not going to happen in the first year, so it is not much of a stimulus package. It really does not happen at all. To suggest that people who receive corporate dividends this year will not have to pay taxes next year—of course, those are the wealthiest people in America as a class—it will not stimulate the economy. Most Americans say that does not make any sense at all. Why create a worse deficit for our country, more debt for our children, more competition for capital funds between business and

Government with a program that won't work?

The President says we can take $676 billion out of our Treasury for this experiment, the first phase of which has already failed. Taking that money out of the Treasury would, of course, mean less money available for America's priorities.

What would that be? Well, more compensation to provide for our military. We are about to go to war. I hope we do not. If we do, make no mistake, we will spend what is necessary to put our troops in the field and make sure they are adequately trained, have the right resources and technology to win, and come home safely. We will spend that money. And we should—every penny of it.

The President says as we take money out of the Treasury, it makes no difference. It does; more money spent on the military means less money spent elsewhere. For example, homeland security. We want to be safe in Illinois. Every person does. It costs money. We need a statewide communication network so all the first responders—police, fire, medical communities—can share in communications instantly. It will cost us $20 million. We do not have it.

If the Federal Government wants to make America safer, wants real homeland security, start on the home front. When we take $676 billion out for a tax break for wealthy people, the likelihood that Illinois will get $20 million to be safer as a State is diminished dramatically.

Another area tells an important story about the priorities of this administration: education. When we take more money out for tax breaks for wealthy people, there is less money available to go into education. Remember a year ago? A year ago yesterday President Bush signed No Child Left Behind, the first and highest priority of his new administration. When he was still in Texas before being sworn in, he called in the congressional leaders, Democrats and Republicans, and said: Put your party label aside; can't we all agree—Senator Kennedy, Congressman George Miller and the Republican leaders—on a bipartisan basis to do something meaningful for America's schools? He convinced them. He convinced me. He convinced the majority in Congress. We passed No Child Left Behind and said we would go after the 6 million-plus students in America who are falling behind in failing schools. We are going to not only find out what their current state of education is, we are going to help the school districts get back on their feet with better teachers, better classrooms, more technology, more time in the classroom, and better results. I cheered it on. We all did. It was a bipartisan approach. The President took great pride.

This would be the centerpiece of his new administration. He was truly going to be an education President.

As soon as the floodlights had dimmed and the television cameras had left, we learned something in this town of secrets, about a secret that had been kept by the administration. The secret was this: The President was prepared to sign the bill to approve the plan. The President was not prepared to put the Federal dollars on the table to make it work. As a consequence, we stand here today with mandates from this No Child Left Behind on school districts in States across America and the Bush White House refuses to fund those mandates.

Pick your State. With very few exceptions, every State in the Union is in deep deficit. My home State of Illinois will swear in a new Governor on Monday. Congressman Rob Blajovich is leaving the House of Representatives to become our new Governor. He inherits a fiscal nightmare of a $4 billion deficit. California has more than a $30 billion deficit. These Governors who are required to balance their budgets will be scrambling to cut basic services or increase taxes. They have no other place to turn.

One of the major responsibilities of our State is education. At a time when the State of Illinois cannot afford to meet its basic obligation for education, we have a mandate coming from President Bush, a mandate under No Child Left Behind, which will add to the expenses of Illinois and every other State, but the President refuses to put the money on the table to fund his own education program.

Take a look at some of the charts to get an idea of the priorities of education by this Bush administration. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the basic bedrock of helping failing schools and students improve, is a part of the Federal budget which reflects the priorities of the administration. Under the Clinton administration, the average amount of increase each year was 22.3 percent. In comes President Bush, the education President, proposing a 3.6-percent increase. Thank goodness Congress refused, denied him, and increased it to 20 percent. This tells you about the priorities.

Look at the increases in education over the last 7 years, overall spending in education, and you see double digits, but for 1 year, until we come to President Bush; his increase was 2.8 percent in education. The education President will not put the money on the table. Under the Bush administration, we have the smallest increase for education in 7 years.

Now take a look at what the Bush budget has done. Because he cuts back on education increases, because he will not fund his own No Child Left Behind, 18,000 teachers were cut from professional development to improve their skills in the classroom; 20,000 students lost college work-study programs; 25,000 limited-English-proficient children were cut from the Federal bilingual education programs; 33,000 kids cut out of afterschool programs; no increase in Pell grants; no increase in student loans. Is this the education President?

No child left behind? Look who is being left behind. Not only the children but the teachers—and the Nation.

If you take a look at President Bush's budget, he promised 6.7 million children would be rescued by No Child Left Behind. In fact, they have not been. They have been left behind themselves. The President said we were going to have 2 million more children protected this year. In fact, there are only 354,000.

When it comes down to it, you have the Bush administration on the one hand posing for pictures and shaking hands with school principals across America and with the other hand reaching into their pockets and pulling out their State funds to fund his unfunded mandate under No Child Left Behind. We will have States paying for the testing required by the Federal Government and not paid for, paying for the evaluation of students required by the Federal Government and not paid for, teacher certification and improvement required by the Federal Government and not paid for, paraprofessionals improving skills required by the Federal Government and not paid for—along series of unfunded mandates from this President.

What will it mean in the States across the Nation? Read the bad news. I have it here. State after State is seriously considering, and some already deciding, to go to a four-day school week because they cannot afford to keep the schools open while President Bush sends unfunded mandates under No Child Left Behind.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. REID. The Senator has outlined what we have required States to do as a result of Federal legislation. What if school districts decide not to do this?

[Page S101]

Mr. DURBIN. They could face a cutoff of the existing Federal funds they are receiving. You have States that could be penalized, States that already are in trouble because of State deficits. They could be penalized by not complying with the Federal mandates that President Bush created, signed, and refused to fund.

Now, let me tell you where I stand. Senator Kennedy, who is not with us today but he certainly has been our leader on this issue, has called for full funding under title 1, full funding under the IDEA program for disabled students, and those are things I support. It comes to about $7 billion, if I am not mistaken. We should come up with that money. If we can find $676 billion for tax breaks for wealthy people, can we not find $7 billion for education?

It is my position—and I do not speak for anyone but myself on this—if this Congress fails to fund the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind, this Senator will propose suspending those mandates, saying to those school districts across America that until we are prepared to put the money on the table, until this economy is stronger, we are not going to require you to test every student every year to make an evaluation of each of those students and go through all the requirements of
No Child Left Behind.

The President cannot have it both ways. He cannot call himself an education President, wrap himself in the cloak of educational reform, and then refuse to put the money on the table. That is what he has done, year after year after year.
There are those who believe the way to stimulate America's economy is to make sure a majority of tax breaks go to a majority of Americans who believe that we should invest, as well, in the education of our children. Is there anything more important? This administration makes it the lowest priority. It should be our highest. That investment by our Nation at this moment in time will not only help us through the current recession but it will also help us for generations to come.