[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.
____________________