[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.
____________________