[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 126 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9713-S9717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            EDUCATION REFORM

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, this Congress began its deliberations 
in a very interesting way. Our conference, our side of the aisle, met 
before the convening of the 105th Congress and concluded or defined 10 
major issues they thought should be brought before the Nation.
  The first issue, which resulted in the first piece of legislation for 
this Senate, for this Congress, was education. It was unanimous 
agreement in the conference that our first expression in this Congress 
on our side of the aisle would be about education and its importance. 
Not long after that the President of the United States announced that 
education would become a centerpiece of his activities during this 
Congress, and he actually visited Georgia, he visited various locales 
across the country, and he talked about, by and large, the requirement 
or need that people have some relief from the costs of higher 
education.
  It is interesting, and in a sense in a bipartisan way, we had key 
leaders in both parties focusing on this issue. It is certainly exactly 
what ought to have happened. I believe the genesis of American glory is 
that we have been a free people. I have said more than once that an 
uneducated people cannot be free. An uneducated people cannot be free.
  So as we, the custodians of this great democracy, prepare for a new 
century, we have to be asking ourselves the question over and over: Are 
we preparing the generation that will lead that century with the tools 
that they will need and require to be ready to do that job? 
Unfortunately, the news is not altogether comforting when you review 
the data.
  Despite the intense interest in the last tax relief proposal on costs 
of higher education, that higher education is not where America is in 
trouble in its education. America is in trouble in its elementary and 
high school level.
  I was reading just the other day a prominent survey of the condition 
in elementary schools. It is fairly alarming. It suggested that 4 out 
of 10 students in elementary school today are frightened by some aspect 
or fearful of violence in the school. Mr. President, the survey 
concluded that 3 out of 10 students in elementary school will have 
property stolen from them in the schools. It suggested that 1 out of 10 
will be confronted with a deadly weapon while they are in school.
  When you look at the condition of our reading proficiency, our basic 
skills--reading, writing, adding and subtracting--we are not comforted 
by the data which, of course, has led to this massive debate about 
skills that students have to achieve by the time they are in the fourth 
grade, have to achieve by the time they are in the eighth grade, and 
how are we going to certify that it has happened.
  I have spent the better part of the last 2 years talking about the 
fact that we have a drug epidemic in the United States, particularly 
among our younger teenagers. We have seen statistics that show that 
drug use has doubled in the last 36 to 40 months. These are 
schoolchildren, Mr. President. If you go to these schools--and I invite 
anybody to do it--the students are very savvy, they know exactly what 
is happening, and they know that there are drugs and violence 
surrounding their environment in school.
  So, 4 in 10 are fearful; 3 in 10 are going to be robbed; 1 in 10 is 
going to face a weapon; and all of them will tell you the nature of 
drugs and the availability of drugs.
  Three out of ten who come to college this September will have to take 
remedial training in reading. In other words, 30 percent-plus of the 
students that have gone through our elementary school system and our 
high school system are not ready for college and can't read well. So I 
guess the story is beginning to frame itself: We have a problem in K 
through high school. An American family ought to at least expect that 
when their child graduates from an American high school, they can do 
the ABC's, they can read, they can write, and they can do their 
arithmetic, and they are not behind. Society spends millions upon 
millions of dollars retraining these students by the time they get to 
college.
  Well, I think this data and these statistics, Mr. President, are the 
reason that when you poll Americans, the vast majority of them now put 
education as the No. 1 issue. It is because they are reading the same 
data that we are reading. And, of course, it is the reason that 
leadership in both parties have come forward of late and have suggested 
that we need to make the Federal Government be the appropriate 
partner--the appropriate partner; not the governor, not the manager, 
but a good partner--in helping our States and our local communities get 
a handle on what is going wrong in public education at the elementary 
and high school level.
  So, as a result, the first bill was introduced, S. 1, which contained 
three major initiatives. First, there was tax relief making employer-
provided educational assistance tax free to help make up this 
shortfall, help these employers bring new educational opportunity to 
their employees. That is now law.
  S. 1 allows State prepaid tuition plans to pay for both college 
tuition and room and board. That is now law.
  S. 1, our first piece of legislation, made interest on student loans 
tax deductible. That is now law.
  S. 1 provided education savings accounts for college. That is now 
law. That was a compromise and a coming together of the President's 
proposals and of our conference proposals.

[[Page S9714]]

  S. 1 dealt with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and 
made a commitment to full funding for the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act because, while passed originally in the 1970's with a 
promise that about half of the cost would be borne by the Federal 
Government, it was never done. Congress had reauthorized the act 
earlier this year. It attempted to modify it, to make it more flexible, 
more suitable for local school boards. And that is now law. Everything 
that we wanted to achieve in S. 1 was not, but much was.
  There were key provisions in S. 1 for school safety. I alluded to 
this data just a moment ago--that you have 4 out of 10 that are 
fearful, 3 out of 10 that will be robbed, 1 out of 10 that confront a 
deadly weapon, and all of the students will tell you of the problems 
with drugs in and around their schools. This is not yet accomplished, 
this key provision of S. 1, and we plan to come back and address these 
issues as we move through this 105th Congress. As an example, we 
currently offered an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill 
that provides funding, Mr. President, for student hot lines to report 
acts of violence in school or for witness protection programs that 
would allow students additional protections if they would ever become a 
victim of a serious crime.
  Now, Mr. President, in the course of the debate on tax relief, I 
introduced an amendment, cosponsored by many, that tried to make the 
tax relief proposal reflect more concern about the problems that we are 
having in elementary school and high school. As I said, if there is a 
criticism about the education components of the tax relief proposal, a 
constructive criticism, it is that it all focuses on higher education. 
But as I have just alluded to, Mr. President, the problem is not there. 
Yes, the problem of costs are associated with it, but it is an 
effective system, the envy of the world. Our elementary schools are not 
the envy of the world, and they are a source of great worry for us in 
the United States.

  So we introduced in the Senate, in the debate on tax relief, a 
proposal that would empower parents to deal with education 
deficiencies, whatever they happen to be, for their children. We 
created and passed in the Senate, by a very powerful vote, 60 to 40, an 
education savings account for students, grades kindergarten through 
high school. It allowed parents to save up to $2,000 per year per child 
in after-tax dollars, but the interest buildup would not be taxed if, 
at the time the account was used, it was used for an educational 
purpose for that child.
  Mr. President, the savings account has a very unique feature to it. 
It allows sponsors to contribute to the account. So the parents can 
contribute to the account, obviously, but the grandparents could as 
well, or an aunt, an uncle, a neighbor, a friend, an employer, an 
organization, an association--all of these could become partners to 
that family to help produce an account that that family could use on 
behalf of the child's education. Mr. President, this would result in 
billions of dollars over the next decade coming to the assistance of 
education where it really needs it--elementary and high school.
  Mr. President, these new dollars, these billions of new dollars, I 
call the smart dollars. They are the most intelligent dollar investment 
that will occur in education. Why is that? Because they can be used for 
any education deficiency; whether the child needed a home computer or 
some other new technology, or the child might need a tutor because of a 
math deficiency, the child might need to be prepared for an SAT test, 
it might be necessary for an after-school program, or transportation, 
or uniforms, or whatever. But these dollars would be directed, like a 
bullet, right to whatever the problem was.
  Now, vast public spending doesn't accomplish that. It sets up the 
broad parameters, but it has a difficult time getting to that child's 
specific deficiency. It may be medical, like dyslexia, or some other 
problem. But who knows best about those deficiencies? The parents. This 
arms those parents with an ability to go right to the problem, right on 
target.
  So these billions of dollars would be the most intelligent invested 
dollars we could envision or imagine in education. Mr. President, these 
education savings accounts have created an enormous outpouring of 
support. There is some opposition, and I am going to deal with that in 
a minute. But the account could also be used for home schooling. The 
account could also be used for tuition, if the parents had decided that 
they needed to put that child in another learning environment, for 
whatever reason.
  Mr. President, last week, we held a press conference here in 
Washington on behalf of two proposals that are part of our side's 
education initiatives. One was the proposal to provide funding for 
Washington, DC, public school scholarships, to allow students that are 
trapped in the most difficult schools an opportunity to have the 
resources, up to $3,200 per student, to move to a school that was 
either safer or was producing a quality education.

  The other proposal that the press conference gathered to support was 
the education savings account that I have just described. It was one of 
the most moving press conferences I have seen in Washington, Mr. 
President. The Presiding Officer and all of us have been to one press 
conference after another, and you can almost cite the routine. But this 
one broke the routine. I knew the Speaker would be there, and the 
majority leader from the House, and myself and Senator Coats from 
Indiana, a leading spokesman for education reform. We walked into the 
room and were joined by Alveda Celeste King, a native of my home city; 
Congressman Flake of New York, an eloquent spokesperson who decided 
that he will resign from Congress and return to his ministry; a young 
woman named Starr Parker, who had written a book, ``From Welfare Mother 
to Work.'' It tells the story of her life, freeing herself from the 
entrapment of dependency, and the independence she has gained by moving 
to regular work; a great spokesperson and a single mother of four from 
Cleveland, OH, giving an elongated story of her work to free her four 
children, who were in violent situations in public schools. They were 
in schools that were not teaching her children, and she told her story 
of freeing them from these schools and getting them to a new 
environment.
  They were all there speaking on behalf of ideas like the education 
savings account and how important it would have been to them to help 
them deal with the particular problems that their children had faced 
and the entrapment that they were confronted with when no options were 
made available to them. The education savings account would have been a 
tool that they could have used to free themselves of these environments 
and get their children into the proper school environment that they 
sought.
  It reminded me, Mr. President.
  I see that we have been joined by our good colleague from Alaska, and 
I am going to turn to him in just a moment.
  But my sister was a single mother of four with two sets of twins. I 
remember my father and I meeting many, many years ago and deciding that 
their education was going to be a major issue. We didn't have a lot to 
spare in those days. We opened up a savings account, and he and I both 
started contributing every month a little bit, and then a little bit 
more so there was a little nest egg available by the time these 
children were trying to deal with their college education.
  If the education savings account had been in place, that nest egg 
would have been twice the size it was when it was ready for use because 
the interest would have built up, and it wouldn't have been taxed. We 
could have used those assets to help further and even do more than was 
done on behalf of their education. There is not a family in America--no 
matter whether their child is in school--that this concept wouldn't be 
applicable to, and no one knows more what the peculiar or particular 
deficiency is than the family.
  So this is a powerful tool that will stand behind education wherever 
it is occurring--public schools or private schools or a home school or 
an employer environment.
  Mr. President, I am going to turn to the Senator from Alaska, who has 
just joined us. He has been an eloquent spokesman in terms of our 
educational issues. I yield him up to 15 minutes, if that is 
appropriate.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

[[Page S9715]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me first commend my good friend 
from Georgia for his efforts to bring attention to the significance of 
the current education situation in the United States, and in 
particular, for emphasizing some of the shortcomings in our educational 
system and what we can do to change them. I am very pleased to join him 
in this effort.
  Mr. President, I would like to talk about issues concerning education 
and the attitude of constituents with regard to what they see as 
insensitivity by the Federal Government. They look upon education as a 
responsibility that should be shared, with the primary concern resting 
with the parents, the educator, and then moving into the community as a 
whole and the school boards, as opposed to a centralized dictate from 
faceless and nameless bureaucrats in Washington, DC, dictating an 
educational system which suggests, ``one size fits all''.
  When I go back to my State of Alaska, I consistently hear about the 
state of education--not only in my State but as it applies in our 
country today. I think it is fair to say that the American people are 
extremely concerned that, despite annually spending hundreds of 
billions of dollars at the Federal, State, and local level, our 
education system to a large degree is failing. The simple fact is that 
78 percent--I am astounded at this--of all 2- and 4-year colleges offer 
remedial courses in math, reading, and writing; 78 percent. We would 
assume that our high school students have these skills when they get to 
the university. But that is not the case. Seventy-eight percent of all 
2- and 4-year colleges now offer remedial courses in math, reading, and 
writing.
  What does that suggest? It is pretty obvious that many high school 
students are being shortchanged in their academic preparations for 
adulthood.
  Is that a responsibility of the parents, the educators, the school 
board, or the system? Well, I would have to say, it is pretty much the 
system.
  As my friend from Georgia recently stated on this floor, the 
educational savings account offers relief. The recently enacted 
balanced budget bill contained nearly $40 billion in tax incentives to 
help parents and students defray college education costs.
  In addition, the new law provides individuals a $2,000-per-year 
lifetime learning tax credit that can be used by an individual 
throughout his or her life, to enhance professional skills or complete 
graduate or undergraduate degrees.
  I strongly support these tax incentives because in the globally 
competitive 21st century our Nation's economic success--our very 
future--will depend on a highly educated and high-skilled labor force.
  It is so disturbing today as we look at some of the areas, 
particularly the inner-city areas of this country, where, 
unfortunately, many young people come from homes in which they spent 
little time with either parent, and oftentimes with a relative trying 
to do the best he or she could in raising those children as a single 
parent. Some of these children are involved at a very young age in 
simply transporting narcotics, a trade made easier because law 
enforcement agencies might not initiate any significant sentencing on 
these young people. Some of them become addicted as teenagers and young 
adults and thus depart on this trail which leads to dire consequences. 
Others may be incarcerated from time to time as teenagers. The fact is 
when they are looking for a job, their skills are very limited. Many of 
them can't read and can't write. They have a very bleak future. 
Oftentimes that future leads to crime, drugs, and ultimately, a burden 
on society.
  It is just not the inner-city areas where we have this exposure. We 
have it in other areas of the country also. Obvioulsy, we need to 
alleviate this situation. To do so, we should assist families instead 
of offering a Federal solution which more often than not will not work.
  So I go into this area to elaborate a little bit on the dilemma 
facing society today. Some of the solutions that have been proposed, 
and the tax incentive for higher education that was supported by the 
President along with the majority of Democrats and Republicans in 
Congress, do not contain restrictions that condition the incentives on 
students attending a public university. So families at the college 
level can take advantage of incentives whether the children attend 
State school or private universities.
  But I think it is ironic that while the Congress and the President 
work so well together on promoting higher education incentives, the 
President, as we know, had threatened to veto the entire tax bill 
because a bipartisan group of Senators, including myself and the 
Senator from Georgia, sought to give parents with children in grades 
kindergarten through 12 basically similar tax choices.
  Why is it that it is all right to provide incentives for attending 
private universities but similar incentives are deemed inappropriate 
while students are attending kindergarten through 12? The White House 
has not offered much of an explanation.
  As important as a university education is this day and age, the best 
assurances that a child will do well in college, let alone be admitted 
to college, is the quality of education that student receives between 
the ages of approximately 5 through 18. When are study habits 
developed? When are reading, writing, and math skills developed? 
Everyone in this Chamber knows that children do not suddenly develop 
these disciplines when they enter college. The foundations for 
educational development begin at the early stages of kindergarten, 
preschool, and evolve as the student moves up in grades through junior 
high and high school.
  As we look at other societies, particularly Japan, I have often been 
struck by the commitment of parents. Many times the mother will study 
with the child. As a consequence, a family unit takes a significant 
interest in the learning process. When those youngsters who are in the 
Japanese system want to go on to school, they must take an exam. There 
is a great deal of family excitement around the test as the student 
studies for the exam and the family experiences a great deal of 
anticipation as to whether or not the child will pass the exam. But it 
is a system, if you will, that is supported by strong parental 
association.

  Sixty Senators voted in June to allow parents to establish 
educational savings accounts, proceeds of which could be used to offset 
the cost of private schools or home schools in the K through 12 grades. 
This would have given parents of young children a very modest tax 
subsidy if they choose to send their children to private school. 
Contributions to such accounts would not have been tax deductible. The 
only benefit of these accounts would have been that earnings could be 
withdrawn tax free.
  Although modest in scope, these accounts could have given real 
choices to low- and middle-income families who believe their children's 
best chance for the future lies in gaining an education in a private 
school.
  Income limits ensure that the benefits of these educational savings 
incentives would have been focused on middle-income families. Wealthy 
families most often do not need to use these educational accounts 
because they can easily afford the cost of private K through 12 tuition 
and because the tax base in wealthy communities often provides the best 
possible public education in the Nation.
  But middle- and low-income families don't have the same choices that 
the wealthy have when it comes to education because they don't have the 
adequate resources to pay private tuition. Allowing these families the 
choice of using funds from educational savings accounts for grades K 
through 12 would enable families with modest incomes to send their 
children to the schools where they believe that the child will get the 
best preparation for college.
  What is wrong with that?
  Mr. President, if the education savings accounts can be justified for 
college tuition, shouldn't they also be allowed for the educational 
expense that gives the child the opportunity to apply to college?
  Mr. President, Congress and the President will again have the 
opportunity to debate this aspect of educational choice in front of the 
American public.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor with my good friend, Senator 
Coverdell, who is with me on the floor today, of

[[Page S9716]]

his bill, PASS A+ Act--and I think that is an appropriate name, PASS A+ 
Act--which would allow parents to make contributions to education 
savings accounts that can be used to finance K through 12 education.
  I hope we can pass this legislation before the end of the year. I 
hope that President Clinton will reconsider his opposition to helping 
families finance the cost of sending their children to the primary and 
secondary schools of their choice.
  Mr. President, while I am a strong supporter of giving families a 
choice of where they send their children to school, I believe a vibrant 
and dynamic public school educational system is a strong bulwark of a 
free society, and I totally support it in this Nation.
  That is why I supported an amendment to the Labor-HHS bill offered by 
Senator Slade Gorton that will award all funds appropriated to the 
Department of Education for K through 12 programs directly to local 
school districts.
  Let the local school districts bear the responsibility associated 
with the education process and let them be responsive to the parents of 
those children entrusted to the local boards of education for 
performance. That is the concept, the very basis of the accountability 
concept. It is pretty hard to hold nameless bureaucrats in Washington, 
DC, under a dictate one-size-fits-all. I think Senator Gorton's 
amendment puts the responsibility down at the local area, with the 
local school boards, by giving them, if you will, the necessary 
funding. His amendment I think reflects my fundamental belief that 
education policies and procedures are best determined by those who are 
the closest to the student. That means shifting decisionmaking to 
parents, teachers, and local school boards and away from Washington 
bureaucrats.
  By simply block granting education dollars to local school boards, 
each of the thousands of communities in this country will have the 
flexibility to improve their education system at the local level, 
putting the responsibility on the people.
  And by consolidating Federal education funds into a block grant we 
can assure that almost every school district will receive more funds 
for actual education rather than having the funds lost in a 
bureaucratic administration mire that exists here in Washington.
  Under the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, more than $11 billion would 
be distributed under the block grant approach. Currently, the costs of 
administering the programs that would be block granted represent nearly 
15 percent of the $11 billion. The block grant approach would free up 
the administrative dollars, meaning nearly $1.5 billion more--$1.5 
billion more--could be used for students instead of filling out forms 
to be sent back to Washington, DC.
  Mr. President, there are 788 Federal education programs that spend 
nearly $100 billion a year. How many of these are necessary? These 
programs are administered by 40 departments and agencies of the Federal 
Government. These agencies, I assure you, are not supportive of our 
proposal because they would not have anything to do.
  Well, it is time to do a top-to-bottom review of how we could 
streamline the delivery of education dollars to local communities, and 
I think Senator Gorton's amendment is the first step. It is my hope the 
President will support this approach through educational funding that 
puts children and teachers ahead of bureaucrats and program managers in 
Washington.
  So I think it is time for Washington to catch up with the American 
people on how to improve the educational opportunities of our children.
  Mr. President, I wonder if I could defer and make a short 
introduction of a resolution that would follow as opposed to 
interrupting the presentation by my colleague.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I will be glad to yield whatever time to deal with the 
resolution, and it is perfectly appropriate. The Senator is asking 
unanimous consent it follow this.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, the resolution 
follow the debate on education we are having here today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the submission of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 53 are located in today's Record under 
``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise to support the 
Coverdell bill, of which I am a cosponsor.
  Mr. President, we have been debating several pieces of legislation on 
education here in this body over the last few weeks. It is important to 
clearly understand how all of this legislation fits together and why. 
This is about restoring the fundamental belief that education policy 
and curriculum belong at the local level; they are best determined by 
those closest to the students, who care most about the students, and 
who have the most to win or lose--the parents, the teachers, the local 
school boards, not Washington. As well-intentioned, as well-motivated, 
as the Department of Education is, as are the President and the 
Congress, who all care about education, it is those at the local level 
who understand it best.

  The Gorton amendment, which has been referred to by my friend and 
colleague from Alaska, was passed last week during the debate on the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill. This amendment block grants funds from 
several K-12 education programs in the Department of Education. It 
sends that money back to the States, back directly to school boards.
  The Coverdell bill, another piece of the fundamental education 
philosophy debate in this body, is the Parent and Student Savings 
Account Plus Act. This legislation, as has been referred to many times 
this morning, allows parents to make up to a $2,000 per year 
contribution in after-tax dollars to an education IRA, or you could 
refer to it as an expanded education savings account for primary and 
secondary education. Parents would be free to choose how this money and 
where this money would be used on behalf of their own children's 
education.
  The Coverdell bill helps families, especially lower-income families, 
exercise the same rights as wealthy people when it comes to deciding 
where their children go to school.
  Mr. President, I always start with this premise: Whose money is this? 
Whose money are we talking about? It is not my money. It is not the 
President's money. It is not the money of the Secretary of Education. 
It is the parents' money, the taxpayers' money. My goodness, should 
they not be empowered with some responsibility, since it is their 
money, as to how they use that, where they focus to help educate their 
children? I think so.
  Our education problems begin not at the college or postsecondary 
level. Somehow we glide over that. Our problems in education begin at 
the beginning, at the elementary and secondary levels. This is where we 
must capture these young people. This is where they learn to read and 
write and discipline themselves and develop logic and work through 
problems--at the beginning. Not in college; it is too late. This is 
where we should focus. This is where the choice should be. This is 
where students and parents desperately need a choice in education.
  We will probably soon have the opportunity to vote on a third 
education reform measure in this body, that being the District of 
Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act, another fit, Mr. 
President, in the overall education debate, the overall education 
philosophy.
  It is no great secret that the District of Columbia school system is 
deeply troubled. It is not the parents' fault. It is not the students' 
fault. But this bill that we will debate would create a tuition 
scholarship fund that would allow 2,000 low-income students in the 
District to attend public schools, private schools, or parochial 
schools, but schools of their parents' choice. It would also provide 
direct aid to an additional 2,000 public school students who want to 
improve their academic skills through afterschool tutoring.
  As Alveda King recently wrote, ``Is it moral to tax families, compel 
their children's attendance at schools and then give them no choice 
between teaching methods, religious or secular education, and other 
matters?'' I do not think it is. ``Is it consistent to proclaim, 
meanwhile, that America is a

[[Page S9717]]

Nation that prides itself on competition, consumer choice, freedom of 
religion, and parental responsibility,'' yet, in fact, we don't give 
our parents a choice where they send their children to school?
  The Gorton amendment, the Coverdell bill and the DC Student 
Opportunity Scholarship Act are not an attempt to destroy 
public schools. My goodness. And that is an important point, Mr. 
President. I hear my colleagues on the other side of this debate 
saying, ``Oh, you will destroy public schools. You will take funds from 
public schools.'' Nonsense. This Nation is a rich, great Nation because 
we have always had diversity. From the first days of the people who 
settled this Nation, it has been about diversity. People from all over 
the globe have made America great and continue to make America great. 
It is about diversity. It is about choice. It is about competition.

  Americans should want their public schools to be the very best, to be 
the absolute best school systems that they can make, they can provide, 
they can develop. I have a daughter in a public school system in 
Virginia. It is a good school system. I am not standing in this Chamber 
today to do anything that would deteriorate, take away or harm the 
public school systems. But we must enable all people to choose the best 
education for their children, whatever their circumstances are in life. 
And we must restore the fundamental belief that education policy and 
curriculum are best determined by those closest to the students--
parents, teachers, school boards--not Washington.
  Mr. President, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the 
Coverdell bill, and I yield my time. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on Monday, millions of American children 
will board schoolbuses all across the country.

  But when they get off those buses, will they be walking into schools 
that challenge them to learn and grow, or into empty shells of missed 
opportunities and lost hopes? Are we doing the best possible job of 
educating our children, or can we do better?
  For decades, the conventional wisdom in our Nation's Capital has been 
that Washington, DC, knows what's best for our schools. I disagree. I 
think teachers, parents, principals, and school boards know what's best 
for our children.
  Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate passed school reform to restore 
the traditional role that parents and teachers play in education.
  The reform adopted by the Senate sends Federal education funds for 
kindergarten through high school directly to school districts.
  Bypassing Federal and State bureaucracies, which siphon millions of 
dollars and attach regulatory strings, means more authority and more 
money for local educators.
  All of us want the best education possible for our kids. We all want 
them to succeed.
  A good education unlocks the future, provides a lifetime key to open 
doors of opportunity and helps our children reach their dreams. We can 
provide that opportunity to our children by restoring the role that 
parents, teachers, and principals need to play in education.
  Unfortunately, Washington, DC, takes a different view--the President 
and Democrats in Congress have denounced this proposal.
  Education should not be a partisan issue, but when this school reform 
measure was approved by the Senate, not a single Democrat voted for it. 
And the President has said he will veto this reform when it comes to 
his desk.
  Apparently, he prefers a system that has Washington, DC, deciding 
what's best for schoolchildren in Chehalis, WA; New York City, and 
every place in between. By taking this position, I think the President 
is telling parents and teachers: ``I don't trust you.''
  While I believe the President has taken the wrong position, I know 
that he and I share the same goal--we both want what is best for our 
children. The debate is not over who cares more for our children's 
future--the debate is about how to achieve our shared goal of doing the 
best we can for children.
  There is nothing more important than our children's future. There are 
few issues as troubling as the state of our educational system. The 
next century will demand a lot--advanced technology, the global 
marketplace, an ever-changing American society--and I am concerned that 
our children aren't going to be completely prepared for their upcoming 
challenges.
  There was a time in America when parents and teachers had more say in 
their children's education. Over time, Washington, DC, gradually took 
responsibility for education from our home towns, and put it in the 
hands of Federal bureaucrats. What have we gotten for allowing 
Washington, DC, to run our local schools?
  Since 1960, education spending has risen 200 percent, but SAT scores 
are down. Teachers used to make up two-thirds of the full-time school 
staff--now it is barely half. And schools are more dangerous than ever.
  The Washington, DC-knows best approach to education has also taken us 
away from the ``back to basics'' approach long-favored by parents. Skim 
through your daughter's American history book. Does it instill her with 
hope? Is it the story of how incredibly diverse people came from all 
over the globe to pursue boundless opportunities? Or is it a visionless 
narrative of American failures and shortcomings?
  Those who oppose this measure argue that it's somehow dangerous to 
entrust parents and teachers with more control over our children's 
education. Those in Washington, DC guard their power jealously, and 
they won't give it up easily.
  The President says this proposal will reduce funding for schools, and 
eliminates the Department of Education--it will not.
  Under this proposal, local schools get more money, and the Department 
of Education plays a more modest role.
  While fewer bureaucrats and a weakened Department of Education are 
valuable byproducts of this effort, they are not my primary concern--
giving parents and teachers more control over their children's 
education is my single most important goal.
  One Senator who opposes school reform said he actually thought that 
parents would build more swimming pools, instead of buying more books, 
if Washington, DC stops telling our schools how to educate our 
children.
  I disagree. It's offensive to suggest that parents and teachers don't 
have the children's best interests in mind.
  I believe that with the additional authority and funding schools 
would receive from this reform, our teachers, parents, principals, and 
school boards will be inspired to do even more--not to build swimming 
pools--they will be inspired to make sure that every child receives the 
best education possible.
  It comes down to this--will local schools be improved through more 
rules from Washington, DC, or will they be improved if we restore the 
authority for education decisions that parents, teachers, and 
principals once had?
  On this issue, I believe the answers are best left to our parents, 
teachers, and communities, not Washington, DC.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for what he has done 
with the education issue. I am really excited about the prospect of 
having, in fact, more education funds available for my State but 
decisions made about those funds going to the States and local 
governments. I commend him for doing that.

                          ____________________