[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 43 (Monday, April 20, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3271-S3274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be 
set aside and I be permitted to speak on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I look forward to the opportunity that 
we now have today and tomorrow to debate one of the most important 
issues facing our country. I applaud all of those involved, Senator 
Coverdell, and others on our side, who have dedicated themselves to 
finding solutions.
  I must say that while we offer solutions and while we mutually 
recognize the importance of the issue, I do not really know of an issue 
that probably divides us more philosophically at this point than does 
education.
  Our Republican colleagues, in large measure, believe there is not a 
role at the Federal level for educational priorities, that it really is 
an issue that ought to be left to the local level, to public school 
districts, and to others.
  Democrats, on the other hand, believe that there ought to be a role 
for every level of government, that the people of the United States 
have an interest and a need to ensure that our educational priorities 
and our educational challenges are met with every tool available to us 
in order to be able to compete effectively in the information age.
  So that difference in philosophical approach brings us to the point 
where we are today, with two very different proposals on how we might 
best address education. One provides what I would describe as a minimal 
tax reduction--$7 per tax return if your children are in public school 
and about $37 if your children are in private school--to the parents of 
children attending school today, a $1.6 billion plan that does not go 
very far when you simply spread it out over the many, many families in 
America who have children in public and private elementary and 
secondary school today. The other is our approach which allows a more 
targeted investment in some of the very specific needs that we have in 
education today.
  I do not think there is much difference of opinion with regard to the 
recognition that a strong public education system is key to America's 
future. I would even argue that most of our Republican colleagues would 
share that view even though they are more likely to be more supportive, 
it appears, of private educational approaches than public.
  Economic prosperity, our position as a world leader, our very 
democracy all depend on providing educational opportunity to children. 
We know that. We also know that in a new global information economy, 
knowledge and work force skills have become an extremely important 
factor in economic growth.
  So at the dawn of the global information economy, it is appropriate 
to give opportunities to communities facing conflicting pressures from 
rising enrollments and aging infrastructure and demands by taxpayers 
for State and local relief. It is appropriate to find ways in which to 
provide communities with new tools to manage these conflicting 
pressures. We recognize that managing these pressures better would be 
good for society, good for the economy, and good for national security.

  We have heard a lot about what is wrong with public education. For 
example, our 12th graders are behind the rest of the world in math and 
science. We all agree that is unacceptable. But there are some signs of 
progress. Our fourth graders are well above the average in mathematics 
and near the top in science.
  Innovative programs are being implemented around the country today. 
Chicago has implemented a broad, districtwide reform program that ends 
social promotions, that raises standards, and that provides extra help 
through weekend and summer school programs. Parents and other 
individuals and communities all over the country are more involved in 
many aspects of schools than they have ever been before. So there are 
some good signs. Schools in low-income neighborhoods in New York

[[Page S3272]]

and other places are implementing programs like Success for All and are 
getting some dramatic results.
  The bottom line is that, with all of the effort underway at the local 
level, do we abandon our public schools? Do we abandon the partnership 
that the people of the United States have had in ensuring, from a 
national perspective, that our public schools have the opportunities to 
meet the challenges of the information age? Do we all agree that it 
should be a fundamental right that all children have the opportunity to 
develop their God-given talents, that our country's future depends on 
it? I hope we can.
  We all know the reality. The reality is that student enrollment is at 
a record level and expected to grow dramatically over the next decade. 
The second reality is that the teacher core is aging; we may not be 
able to keep up in recruiting what needs there will be in every 
classroom in the country--a qualified teacher--to keep student-teacher 
ratios somewhere close to where they are today. The reality is that 
schools will need to hire more than 2 million new teachers over the 
next decade.
  The reality is that school buildings are aging. The reality is that 
the General Accounting Office has now reported to the U.S. Senate and 
to the American people that there is a $112 billion backlog in 
construction funding needed to address deteriorating buildings--$112 
billion. And this does not include funds to provide additional 
classrooms for enrollment growth, reduce class sizes, or put more 
technology in classrooms. This just says, given where we are right now, 
given the current enrollment--let us not talk about increases in 
enrollment, let us not talk about what it is going to take to put 
technology in classes--given current enrollment, we have a $112 billion 
backlog in construction.
  We talk about infrastructure backlogs. We talk about the deficits we 
have--our trade deficit, our infrastructure deficit in highways and 
bridges and roads, the deficit that we have had for so long with regard 
to our budget--now fortunately resolved, at least for now--but could 
there be a more important deficit for which this country needs to be 
concerned than the deficit we have in our schools and in the 
educational system that directly affects the quality of education our 
students get?
  Addressing these problems demands a cooperative and concerted effort 
at every level of government. I have too many communities in rural 
South Dakota that recognize everything I have said. But they say to me 
directly, ``We simply can't acquire the resources necessary to meet the 
challenges that we know are out there. And, frankly, we don't know what 
we're going to do.'' They tell us that this is a national concern and 
ought to be addressed as a national issue. If it is addressed as a 
national issue, the people of the United States have to be concerted in 
their effort to find ways to deal with these problems more effectively.
  The American people want action. You name the poll, conservative or 
liberal--the polls will tell us that education is one of the highest 
priorities in our country today. Only 1 percent of the Federal budget 
is spent on primary and secondary education, and that includes special 
education--1 percent.
  So, Madam President, it isn't that we are breaking the budget with 
what we spend. It isn't that we simply have taken money away from other 
things to put in education. When you have a $112 billion deficit on 
just infrastructure for education, and are only spending 1 percent of 
the budget, the question is, what should we do? What opportunities can 
be afforded to address this in a more balanced and more prudent way?

  As we contended with that question over some period of time and with 
virtual unanimity, Democratic Senators have introduced S. 1708, the 
bill we call the RESULTS Act, to show what we think should be done to 
improve public education. Our bill does a number of things, and I want 
to outline them very briefly.
  First, it reduces the class size in the early grades and helps 
communities hire 100,000 qualified teachers. We have already seen what 
hiring more cops does in neighborhoods. I was just in South Dakota for 
virtually 2 weeks, and I was amazed at the reports that I am getting, 
at the tremendous effect community police have had. We have added new 
community police to the work force in so many communities in my State. 
If it is so good for preventing crime and dealing with crime in 
neighborhoods, what could be better than to say we have also got to do 
it in education? We have to find a way to ensure that this dramatic 
shortage we are going to have with teachers all over the country can be 
addressed in an effective way.
  Let's hire 100,000 qualified teachers over the next couple of years. 
Once we have hired those teachers, the second thing we do is to say 
let's build and modernize 5,000 public schools. We have a series of 
charts, that I will get to in a minute, that help us address these 
things. But let's modernize some schools, 5,000 of them; set that as 
our goal.
  Let's provide after-school care for half a million children. Let's 
provide more computers for classrooms across the country and training 
for teachers who were just hired. Let's establish an educational 
opportunity grant program for high poverty urban and rural areas that 
are serious about bringing about real reform.
  I was never so pleased as when I saw this morning in the Washington 
Post where a school in Fairfax County has decided to use the 
multimillion-dollar investment they have, 12 months a year, to improve 
education in ways they are not doing today. The article went on to say 
that there are about 2,700 schools around the country that are doing 
the same thing. I say it is about time.
  Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have chosen not to address 
those issues. They don't deal with these problems. The Republican 
budget resolution states explicitly that no funding for any of the 
President's education initiatives shall be authorized--that s 
explicitly in the budget. It provides $2 billion less than what the 
President has proposed for education and training in next year's 
budget. It actually denies help to reduce class sizes and hire the 
100,000 teachers I mentioned a moment ago. It actually denies help to 
communities to build or modernize public schools. It denies additional 
after-school care to help children learn more and reduce juvenile 
crime. It denies the incentive to help high poverty communities adopt 
serious comprehensive reform.
  Instead, unfortunately, my colleagues continue to insist that 
vouchers to private schools and block grant proposals that absolutely 
remove any opportunity for the entire country to be engaged in a 
national investment in education be provided. In short, they do 
virtually nothing, to improve public education today.
  I reiterate, you can make the case that all this ought to be done at 
the local level. You can make the case that somehow Rochford and 
Ipswich and Rosholt and Warner and Buffalo and Faith and Wall, SD, 
don't need any help from the people of the United States as they try to 
figure out ways in which to address the incredible array of problems 
that they have. But we are not willing to admit that. We believe 
strongly that we have to have a comprehensive agenda in education. We 
have to address this terrible problem we have in infrastructure. We 
have to recognize that this teacher shortage is real. We have to find 
ways with which to acknowledge the information age and access better 
technical innovation. We can do that. We can pass the RESULTS Act. I 
hope we will do that.
  Of all the things I hope we can talk about in some detail, I want to 
focus on one of those today, with the hope that maybe we can come back 
and address some of the others at another time. I want to talk briefly 
about this matter of infrastructure, because I do believe that when it 
comes to the array of priorities we have, perhaps the biggest concern I 
have right now, as we look at the challenges we face, is 
infrastructure.
  We are proposing in our legislation--and we will offer an amendment 
tomorrow--to provide interest-free school modernization bonds to 
improve public education across the country. It is a new, cost-
effective financing option for communities. And I emphasize ``option.'' 
There are no mandates. Schools don't have to use this. But as they 
contemplate whether or not they can afford a new school, a new 
facility, modernization, they will now have the

[[Page S3273]]

knowledge, if this legislation passes, that we will assist them, we 
will reduce their tax load, we will reduce the amount of exposure they 
have as they make their commitments. We will do that with them. So this 
is really a tax reduction effort of a different kind.
  The way we do it is pretty simple. We simply say, if you make a 
commitment to new infrastructure, we are going to help you make it more 
cost effective. We will make it more cost efficient, more palatable 
from a cost point of view, by paying the interest. You pay the 
principal; we will pay the interest. The interest is sometimes up to 
half of the overall cost.
  The overall bonding authority is about $22 billion. To take a typical 
scenario where you have conventional bond financing, a $15 million 
project would require an additional $7.5 million of interest. In this 
typical project, we would be paying $7.5 million, or about one-third, 
as a national commitment and the local communities would pay $15 
million. So the interest-free school modernization effort would have a 
profound effect on a local decision.
  Now, as most people know, local decisions involving bond issues 
sometimes require a 60 percent vote, and in many cases even a 67 
percent vote, or two-thirds, is required. I can't tell you how many 
times bond issues in South Dakota have failed on the basis of 1 percent 
or 2 percent. An overwhelming majority have passed them, but they have 
fallen short of the 60 or 67 percent required in order to meet the 
local legal requirements. I am convinced this would put us over the top 
in many of those cases.
  Why do we even worry about it? Why should we be concerned about 
whether the bond issues go over the top? This chart lays it out fairly 
well: 74 percent of the Nation's public schools today are more than 25 
years old; nearly a third are more than 50 years old.
  We have modern businesses, modern Senate office buildings, and we 
have schools in which our children are expected to learn that are today 
more than 50 years old. Now, they don't have the resources we have in 
the U.S. Capitol, a building that is 200 years old. If they did, I 
would not be concerned. It isn't the age of the buildings, if they are 
well built, but what kind of buildings are they? Well, this second line 
answers that question:
  Fourteen million kids today are in schools needing major renovation 
or replacement--14 million; 12 million children are in schools with 
leaking roofs and/or ineffective or defective plumbing; 10 million kids 
are in schools with inadequate lighting; 7 million kids are in schools 
with safety code violations, such as the presence of asbestos, lead 
paint, and an array of other environmental problems.
  We want our kids to learn and we say that education is a priority. We 
say we are willing to make the investment. We say that there can't be 
anything more important than our children. But then we tell our 
children that we want you to learn in a building that is out of date, 
that needs renovation, that may have toxic chemicals in the classroom, 
that has poor lighting and, God forbid, poor plumbing. But we want you 
to learn because you are important to us.
  The real problem is that, in the future, this is going to be 
exacerbated dramatically. Public school enrollment will increase by 13 
percent in the next 10 years. And 6,000 new schools are going to need 
to be built at an estimated cost of $73 billion just to maintain 
current class size, just to say that if we are going to keep the 25-to-
1 student-teacher ratio, we have to build 6,000 new schools. The 
question comes, if we need a 60 or 67 percent vote at a local level and 
we say it is all your responsibility, we don't care whether you have 
the resources or not, this just isn't going to happen, Madam President. 
Forty-five percent of the school districts are already using 3,621 
trailers and makeshift classrooms. If you have not been in one of those 
classrooms when it is 85 degrees outside, I invite you to participate. 
It is as dramatic a lesson in the extraordinary problems our teachers 
and students are facing as they try to learn as anything I have seen.
  The enrollment here is pretty clear. All of the blue we see on this 
map shows where we see dramatic increases in enrollment. It doesn't 
take a rocket scientist to figure out that in every one of those States 
we have some very serious educational infrastructure problems that we 
have to address.
  Madam President, it really comes down to this. State and local taxes 
as a share of income have already risen 10 percent in the past two 
decades. The estimated $112 billion backlog and the $73 billion cost of 
new schools will place an increasing burden on State and local 
taxpayers, even though these taxes have gone up. By dramatically 
cutting the cost of school repairs and construction to communities, 
interest-free bonds will provide badly needed property and sales tax 
relief to working families.
  This isn't just an education proposal, this is a tax relief proposal. 
If you think property taxes are too high, if you think local taxes are 
too high, then you are going to want to support this amendment because 
this is a way to reduce local property taxes, local taxes to fund the 
educational demands that we are going to have in virtually every State 
in the country.
  The State courts are already mandating new infrastructure. They are 
requiring that we remedy the financing inequities. Courts in 11 States 
have ruled that the school financing systems are unconstitutional. In 
nearly every case, States have complied by raising property or sales 
taxes to finance school improvements.
  What does that tell you if the courts are already mandating what we 
are trying to do voluntarily? They are saying that you have to find a 
better way to finance schools because what you have is not working. 
Litigation is pending in 16 other States already.
  Madam President, it is pretty simple. Americans have looked at this 
proposal. Three-fourths of the voters in this country--75 percent--
favor Federal aid to communities for school repair and modernization. 
Fifty percent of the voters consider overcrowded schools a major 
problem. Almost 80 percent believe public school renovation and 
modernization is a higher Federal priority than highway construction. I 
supported the highway bill, and I continue to do so. I think it was a 
good piece of legislation. But if we are going to make a commitment to 
highway infrastructure and transportation infrastructure in this 
country, where is the same enthusiasm for ensuring that we have the 
educational infrastructure?

  Madam President, 73 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of 
independents strongly support a Federal commitment, a commitment by the 
people of the United States, to education and infrastructure 
modernization. We will have an opportunity to have more debate and 
further discussion and consideration of these Democratic proposals. I 
do hope that, as these votes are presented to our body tomorrow, we 
will see the wisdom of making these investments, and that we will put 
our money where our mouth is when we make the commitment and tell our 
children that we are going to help you be educated, that you are our 
highest priority, that you truly deserve to have the kind of 
opportunities to learn in an environment that is conducive to learning. 
That is what this is about. I just hope our colleagues will weigh it 
carefully and support these Democratic amendments as they are offered 
during this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, it is my understanding that there are 
no more amendments that are ready for offering this evening. So, very 
shortly, we will move to closure.
  I did want to take a minute or two to reiterate that the proposal 
currently before the body that is authored by myself on this side of 
the aisle, and Senator Torricelli on their side of the aisle, is a 
bipartisan effort to bring about substantial change in education.
  The minority leader and I have a different view on the data coming 
out of our elementary schools. He suggested that we are doing pretty 
well in math among fourth graders, and near the top in science. I just 
haven't seen any data that suggests that. The data I am seeing suggests 
that only 4 out of 10 students in our big city schools are able to pass 
a basic exam. If you lump them all together, it only gets up to 6 out 
of 10, which is hardly something that America can count on to get ready 
for the new century.

[[Page S3274]]

  The Senator from South Dakota spent considerable time talking about 
the school construction proposal. I want to point out that there is a 
school construction proposal offered by Senator Graham of Florida that 
is in the proposal that is on the floor. It loosens, or makes more 
easy, the opportunity to finance school construction. It is not nearly 
as expensive as the proposal being talked about here.
  Just to take a moment or two, the proposal that was just outlined by 
the minority leader does raise some questions. I know in my State--I 
don't know about the State of the chair--billions of dollars are 
already being spent to build schools, to modernize schools, and that is 
because it is a State responsibility.
  As I was listening to the presentation, it was sort of running 
through my mind, well, are we headed toward a situation where those 
States that accepted their responsibility and built their schools and 
kept them modern are now going to have to subsidize States that have 
not? It is a curious question. As we have time to debate their 
proposal, I am sure it will clarify itself somewhat. But it certainly 
raises a question in my mind. I would not want a situation to occur 
where Georgia had fulfilled its responsibilities and some other State 
didn't, so now we are going to step in with a new proposal to make 
right something that perhaps is not.
  I think you have to remember that construction has traditionally been 
a State responsibility. However, Senator Graham's proposal does broaden 
the ability and make it more accessible for States to construct in this 
case immediately some 500 schools across the Nation.
  Madam President, I want to clarify one statement just before we yield 
for the unanimous consent requests.
  The minority leader said that our side of the aisle did nothing for 
public education. That is a pretty far-reaching statement considering 
that the proposal in front of us would help 14 million families finance 
education, 10 million of which are in public education, that would 
accumulate in the first 5 years $5 billion of new resources, $2.5 
billion of which would go to support public schools. It would help 21 
States plus 17 additional States that are considering prepaid tuition. 
It would help employers in the continuing education of 1 million 
employees. It would help 250,000 graduate students and would provide up 
to $3 billion in school construction over the next 5 years--public 
school construction.
  I not only consider that something; I consider that a lot, an 
enormous beginning in making the Federal Government a good partner in 
terms of improving education in our country--public, private, home, 
wherever it is occurring.
  Tomorrow we will have an opportunity to debate an amendment offered 
by the Senator from Washington that removes the Federal constriction, 
or constraints, or oversight on about $15 billion, that would allow 
local school districts to hire teachers, build schools, provide buses, 
or whatever the Governors of those States and local communities thought 
necessary. It wouldn't have the Federal mantra over it that says you 
only get these benefits if you do these things the way we say. That 
will be an interesting debate that we will get into tomorrow.


                           Amendment No. 2290

  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
second-degree amendment No. 2290 be agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Amendment (No. 2290) was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
immediately following the 10 a.m. vote on Tuesday relating to the 
international shipping bill, there be 4 minutes equally divided in the 
usual form prior to a vote on the motion to table the Kennedy amendment 
No. 2289 to House Resolution 2646, the Coverdell A+ education bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that 
at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation 
to the Glenn amendment No. 2017, to be followed by a vote on or in 
relation to the Mack-D'Amato amendment No. 2288, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be 
in order to the above amendments; and, finally, that prior to each of 
those scheduled at 2:15 there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided in 
the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________