[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 29, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S899-S908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               AFFORDABLE EDUCATION ACT OF 1999--Resumed

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1134) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to allow tax-free expenditures from education individual 
     retirement accounts for elementary and secondary school 
     expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of 
     contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Collins amendment No. 2854, to eliminate the 2-percent 
     floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions for qualified 
     professional development expenses of elementary and secondary 
     school teachers and to allow a credit against income tax to 
     elementary and secondary school teachers who provide 
     classroom materials.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The able Senator from Nevada is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2857

   (Purpose: To increase funding for part B of the Individuals with 
                      Disabilities Education Act)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for Senator 
Dodd, who is in transit, cosponsored by Senator Reid of Nevada and 
Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Dodd, for 
     himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Reed, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2857:
       Strike section 101 and insert the following:

     SEC. 101. IDEA.

       There are appropriated to carry out part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act $1,200,000,000, 
     which amount is equal to the projected revenue increase 
     resulting from striking the amendments made to the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 by section 101 of this Act as reported 
     by the Committee on Finance of the Senate.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Dodd has worked on this issue for 
many years. He will be here shortly.
  I am very happy we are finally getting the opportunity to have a 
serious debate about some of the educational

[[Page S900]]

problems we face in America today. It doesn't matter which of the 50 
States you go to, there are problems dealing with education. I would be 
very happy if, rather than debating alternatives to public education, 
we started debating how to improve public education. More than 90 
percent of the children in America go to public schools. We should be 
focused on how best to educate that 90-plus percent of children in 
America today.
  The Federal Government provides 6 percent of the total education 
spending--roughly $38 billion. That $38 billion, by the way, is just 2 
percent of the total Federal Government's budget. So we spend in 
America, the greatest nation in the world, the only superpower, 2 
percent of our budget to educate our kids. Most Americans do not 
realize how little the Federal Government contributes to education.
  I repeat that figure. The Federal Government spends about 2 percent 
of its budget on education. Within these tight budget constraints, we 
must focus on what works. I hope we will start talking about what works 
and about some of the things that maybe don't work as well and some new 
things we need to do in the area of education. I hope we can spend some 
time talking about and providing money for recruiting and training 
high-quality teachers, principals, and administrators. I hope we can 
spend some time talking about creating smaller classes and smaller 
learning communities in large schools. We have had experiences around 
the country from which we know that smaller schools work better than 
larger schools.
  Deborah Meyer is an expert in this field. She was a school 
administrator in New York--a large school that is not doing well. She 
decided, because they were doing so poorly in all areas, that they had 
to do something radically different. She spoke to her superiors. They 
agreed to break the school up into four separate schools, with teachers 
who would report to separate administrators--four distinct schools. 
Within a very short period of time, all test scores skyrocketed. 
Everything about those schools improved. Having four schools instead of 
one school made it easier to teach the kids. The kids felt like they 
were part of the community.
  We need to talk about how we can create smaller schools and smaller 
classes generally.
  We all agree that we need to spend some time and provide resources so 
we can have schools, teachers and administrators more accountable. We 
have to ensure that children learn in modern, safe classrooms and 
repair schools in urgent need of renovation.
  When I was growing up in Southern Nevada, the place we all looked to 
with great admiration was Boulder City, NV. It was the town that was 
formed as a result of Boulder Dam, now Hoover Dam. It was a wonderful 
community. In southern Nevada, it was one of the few places that had 
grass. It was a company town. They did not allow gambling. The only 
kind of alcohol that was allowed to be served was 3.2-percent beer. It 
was really a unique town in Nevada. Kids did very well on all their 
tests. Their athletic teams were tremendous, even though it was a small 
school.

  A while ago, I was asked to visit that school. They wanted to show me 
how that school had deteriorated physically--the plan, which had been 
the admiration of all Nevada, had gone downhill. The gymnasium was 
rundown. The track where the kids would participate in athletics was in 
very bad shape. In some places they did not even have hot water. They 
could not bring in computers because the wiring was so bad.
  A lot of schools are that way. There have been some improvements made 
to Boulder City High School, but it is still an old, old facility. It 
is a perfect example of a school that needs renovation. You may ask why 
isn't it renovated. Well, the Clark County school district, which is 
the seventh or eighth largest school district in America, is growing 
very rapidly; it is the fastest growing school district in all of 
America, with approximately 220,000 kids. In 1 year, to try to meet the 
demands of the children of Clark County, they dedicated 18 new 
schools--in one school district. They have to build an elementary 
school every month to keep up with the growth in Clark County. They 
need to have the resources to be able to renovate schools. They have 
been too busy building new schools.
  That is why it is important that we do something to help local school 
districts renovate and build new schools. Of course, we need to expand 
access to technology. One way of doing that is to have modern schools. 
We have to ensure universal access to high-quality preschool programs 
and make college more affordable.
  I have talked about Nevada; there is probably no better State than 
Nevada to see the struggles with which our public schools in this 
country are dealing. Today, they are having a Governor's conference in 
Washington. Governors from around the United States are gathered here. 
In the Nevada papers today, they are reporting a conversation with 
Governor Guinn, newly elected from Nevada. He was formerly the 
superintendent of schools of Clark County when it was a relatively 
small school district. He is saying that one of the problems they are 
having in Nevada is the Federal Government is not helping enough, that 
they are running $75 million to $80 million short just in the Clark 
County school district every year in the ability to take care of 
special ed students.
  Well, that is what this amendment is all about. This amendment would 
provide all or part of that $75 million for the Clark County school 
district, so the Federal Government would, in effect, meet the 
obligation that it has. When it came to be that, instead of having 
separate school districts, setting a different standard for children 
who are handicapped, the Federal Government set standards. Now all 
school districts have to meet the same standards. Prior to that time, 
different school districts would have different standards for 
handicapped children. The agreement, or reasoning, or idea was that it 
would cost about 40 cents for each dollar extra to educate a 
handicapped child. But the Federal Government hasn't met that 
obligation. Now it has even dropped in recent years. Instead of 40 
cents, it is 6 cents. This amendment is an effort to raise that, to 
take money and provide it to the handicapped children--those in need of 
help, the special needs children.
  Clark County, as I have indicated, is exploding in population. In 
just 10 years, Clark County school district enrollment has more than 
doubled. We can pick any school to show the growth, but let's take the 
school called Silverado, a high school in Las Vegas. The school now has 
about 3,800 students, which is 42, 45 percent over capacity. It is 
expected to grow. Next year, they think Silverado will have over 4,000 
students in it. For children at Silverado, it is not only a difficult 
learning environment, but just to go to a restroom is a real problem. 
They have the same number of restrooms that they would have for 40 
percent less children. This problem at Silverado is true throughout the 
Clark County school district. I am sorry to report that it is this way 
around many parts of the country. We have the need for new schools in 
Clark County, some need renovations. Around many parts of the country, 
the need is as bad for renovating schools as for building new ones.

  In Clark County, we are struggling to find qualified teachers. Last 
year, we had to hire almost 2,000 new schoolteachers in 1 year. That is 
a real job. Our university system can't produce nearly enough teachers 
to meet the demands--almost 2,000 new teachers in one school district. 
We need help in recruiting and training highly qualified teachers.
  Nevada is a State--I am not happy to report--which has the highest 
dropout rate of any State in the country. But there is no State in the 
Union that should feel smug about dropout rates. In America today, 
3,000 children drop out of school every day. These are children who are 
going to wind up being less than they could be. They certainly won't be 
as educated as they should be, or as productive economically as they 
should be; they won't be able to provide for a family the way they 
could. So high school dropouts is a problem. About 500,000 children 
drop out of school in America every year. We need to do something about 
that. That is a major problem that we need to address. I think and hope 
that this amendment would relate directly to that and provide school 
districts with money for

[[Page S901]]

those with special needs so they can use their money for other things 
such as renovating schools, doing something as it relates to making 
sure they have high quality teachers.
  If we can come up with something that would keep some of those 
children in school--I am sure there is nothing we can do to keep all 
500,000 of them in school every year, but if we can reduce the number 
of dropouts by 100 a day, 200 a day, 500 a day, so at the end of the 
year, instead of having 500,000 students dropping out of school, we 
would have 400,000, or 300,000. The fact is that we have to do 
something about this problem.
  The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and I offered amendments 
in the past two Congresses. The year before last we offered an 
amendment that passed the Senate and was killed in the House last year, 
I am sorry to report, on a strictly partisan vote. Our amendment 
dealing with dropouts was defeated. It was strictly a party-line vote.
  What would our amendment have done? It would have created, within the 
Department of Education, a dropout czar, someone whose job it would be 
to focus only on high school dropouts in this country. There are 
programs around the country that work quite well. Many of them are very 
small, but we need somebody to help each school district, to be 
available, not to force the will of the Federal Government on local 
school districts, but to be available with resources to see if they can 
do something to help kids stay in school. If the school district wanted 
help, they could come to the dropout czar in the Department of 
Education and get help.
  I hope we can look at that during this debate to see what we can do 
to keep kids in school. As I said, the underlying amendment that we are 
debating now certainly would allow us to take some of that money now 
being used for special education and use it for programs such as high 
school dropouts.
  The Federal Government has no intention of taking away the ability of 
local school districts to make their decisions, but what we need to be 
is a resource, to be a resource to help public education in America 
today. School districts all over America are begging for our help. They 
recognize there is not a movement in Washington to take over local 
school districts.
  We have to recognize that schools should be controlled at the local 
level. Resources should be provided by the Federal Government, and, in 
my opinion, far more resources than 2 percent of the Federal budget. 
Why? Because we need to recognize that schools all over America are 
struggling. They are struggling because they cannot meet the high 
interest payments on the bonds they had to let to borrow money to build 
these schools. We recognize that around the country they are having 
trouble passing bond issues to provide for new schools and for 
renovating new schools.
  We know there is a shortage of teachers. We have to do a better job 
of making sure teachers, who are educated at teachers colleges and 
other university systems around the country, are well qualified and 
meet certain minimum standards. We have to focus on this to make sure 
we have high-quality teachers and good administrators.
  We have to recognize that smaller classes are important. We have to 
recognize on a Federal level we have a national problem across this 
country with school construction. We have to have a national program to 
help local school districts.
  We have recognized for years that something has to be done about 
accountability. Goals 2000 is a step in that direction. We have to move 
on to that.
  We have to make sure that children are allowed to go to school in 
safer schools--schools where the roofs don't leak. We have to make sure 
that children have access to computer equipment. That is a standard. 
When I was going to school, you had to have teeter-totters and swings. 
Now you need to have computers. Expanding activities in technology is 
vitally important. We have to make sure there is universal access to 
high-quality preschool programs.
  I see on the floor today my friend, the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts, who more than any other person in America has made sure 
that we have a continuing dialog on preschool programs. Head Start 
programs and other programs are the brainchild of the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  We have to continue making sure we have high-quality preschool 
programs, which have been long established. The better preschool 
programs we have, the better students we have coming to school.
  The way the family situation has developed, both parents are working. 
Because of the need they have, it is more important than ever that 
there be good, high-quality preschool programs.
  The amendment now before us will allow that because it will free up 
money that simply isn't available to local school districts. I hope the 
amendment offered by Senator Dodd will receive bipartisan support. The 
$1.2 billion set forth in this bill will be used to go directly to 
school districts. That is what this amendment does. Again, I hope it 
will receive bipartisan support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I see Senator Kennedy from 
Massachusetts. I wish to respond for a moment or two to the comments of 
Senator Reid. Then I think in the comity of events it would come to the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Senator Reid's statements dealt with a panoply of issues related to 
education but not necessarily to the amendment he just submitted for 
Senator Dodd. In a word, the amendment offered by Senator Dodd 
basically removes the education savings accounts provision. It would 
make that moot.
  It is premised on the statement we have all heard many times that 
special education which was passed in the mid-1970s was supposed to 
have been funded in part by the Federal Government, in part by the 
State governments, and in part by the local governments. But the 
Federal Government never fulfilled its promise.
  Interestingly enough, the Democrats were in the majority until 5 
years ago. For the entire time they were there when it became law and 
was the agreement, they consistently ignored it.
  Since a Republican majority has come to the Senate, under the 
leadership of a number of Members on our side--but particularly I will 
mention today Senator Gregg of New Hampshire--there has been a 
consistent attempt on our side to fund this special education funding. 
I will give you an example.
  In fiscal year 1997, the President--that is their view--requested 
$2.6 billion for this need that the Senator from Nevada has been 
describing, but we increased that to $3.1 billion or almost a new $1 
billion to put into special education. In the next year, the President 
offered a budget of $3.2 billion, but we passed, at the prodding of the 
Senator from New Hampshire, $3.8 billion or $700 million more.
  In fiscal 1999, the President asked for $3.8 billion, but we answered 
with $4.3 billion, another half billion dollars for special education. 
In the fiscal year 2000 budget, the President asked for $4.3 billion, 
but we made it $4.9 billion.
  The point is that on our side we have consistently been trying to 
improve this account for special education. That was ignored for almost 
35 years on the other side.
  I have to be a little suspicious of an amendment that suddenly wraps 
itself around the interest of special education when they couldn't do 
it for some 35 years previously. It actually took a new majority to 
start fulfilling their pledge for special education.
  As I said, the effect of the amendment would be to make moot the 
education savings accounts. This issue came up last week in a 
discussion between myself and Senator Wellstone of Minnesota. This $1.2 
billion or $1.3 billion that we are talking about being invested in 
education savings accounts will produce $12 billion in savings and 
investments in education. It is a classic situation. If we take the 
$1.3 billion and commit it to that which is recommended by Senator 
Dodd, it will be worth $1.3 billion, and we will forfeit the value of 
the savings buildup that can go to do all the things about which the 
Senator from Nevada talked. It allows a family to purchase computers. 
It allows families to hire tutors. It allows families to aid and abet 
and assist their children who need or have special

[[Page S902]]

education requirements. The effect of this amendment would be to 
forfeit and give up the accumulation of $12 billion in new resources 
and new assets.
  That seems to me to be pretty shortsighted. Why would we forfeit one 
of the largest infusions of resources--I might add one of the smartest 
infusions of resources--coming from the families themselves? We are not 
having to raise taxes to do it. No State, nor Governor, nor local 
school district is having to do it. People are doing it on their own. 
They are producing smart, intelligent dollars because those dollars 
will be invested precisely on the need of the students.
  At the appropriate time, of course, I will urge our colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis to defeat this amendment because the effect of it is 
designed to make moot the education savings accounts. That is the 
ultimate goal of this amendment.

  As I said, when you look at the history of the failure to deal with 
special education, I think the Senator from New Hampshire referred to 
this effort as somewhat hollow in that year after year, no attention 
was paid to the special accounts. Suddenly, we will use it as a weapon 
against an education savings account, which would choke out, as I said, 
$12 billion in new resources. I am all for and will support in next 
year's budget additional funding for IDEA but not at the expense of 
forfeiting a voluntarily accumulated $12 billion that will come to the 
aid of public, private, and home schooling education all across the 
country.
  I might add, the legislation we are debating deals with school 
construction. It does it in the appropriate way because it allows the 
decisionmaking to occur at the local area. The Senator from Nevada goes 
to great extent to suggest their plans will not interrupt or in any way 
constrain local school decisions. But the fact of the matter is, in the 
last 30 years quite the opposite has occurred. Most of our Federal 
programs have led to enormous constraints and mandates on local school 
districts. The education savings account goes in a completely different 
direction. It empowers parents and students and employers. It has no 
mandates.
  So I remind everybody the legislation deals with education savings 
accounts empowering parents to help their children. It empowers 
employers to have programs of continuing education. It helps students 
who are in State-prepaid tuition plans so those resources are not lost 
to the tax collector. It contributes to allowing more flexibility so 
local school districts can be involved in school construction--this 
idea coming from Senator Graham of Florida, from the other side of the 
aisle.
  With that, I will yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Certainly.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator, though we certainly disagree on 
approach, I commend him for his interest in education. One thing I 
found interesting in the analysis of my colleague's bill is the 
suggestion that most of the benefits for education will go to the 
wealthiest people in this country.
  Will the Senator comment on that and tell me whether he believes, as 
I do, that though we want every family to have an opportunity, if we 
are going to have limited resources applied for incentives in 
education, we should look to working families and middle-income 
families--and lower income families, for that matter, who otherwise may 
not ever be able to send their kids off to college--as our highest 
priority, as opposed to the approach of the Senator, which apparently 
takes the wealthiest families as the highest priority.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I am pleased the Senator asked the question. I do not 
know where he is getting the data. Let me respond in this way. The 
means test is identical to the one both the President and the Congress 
used for the higher education IRA. There is no difference. We all 
celebrated that IRA account. You can save up to $500 a year for your 
college education. All this says is it should be larger, $2,000, and it 
should be available for K-12. But there is no difference in the means 
testing.
  The data I have seen over and over suggested over 70 percent of all 
these savings, or the use of the savings accounts, would go to families 
earning $75,000 or less. So if there is a pox on this means test, then 
there is the same one on an account which we have all been applauding 
for the last 2 or 3 years.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. My argument or observation was we want all families to 
consider higher education and educational opportunities, regardless of 
what they are earning. I will just concede for the sake of this debate 
that the Senator from Georgia is correct, and the $500 IRA that was 
proposed by the administration, supported by all of us, probably does 
benefit those who can save. Generally, those are people in higher 
income categories.
  My question to the Senator from Georgia is, if he is proposing a new 
program in addition to this, would it not be better now to focus on 
those who were not served by that $500 IRA and really focus on those 
families who may not have the benefit of it if we are going to expand 
our investment in education?
  The Treasury Department estimates that under the Senator's bill, the 
wealthiest 20 percent, the upper one-fifth of families in America, will 
receive nearly 70 percent of the benefits. Wouldn't it be more fair, 
since the initial IRA, as my colleague noted, really helps those 
families, that additional money spent should go to working families and 
those who maybe have been overlooked by both the administration and the 
Senate to this point? Why do we want to continue this path of 
subsidizing families who are the wealthiest in our country?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Maybe it is just a disagreement between the two of us 
about what constitutes wealth. I do not consider families, middle-
income, earning $75,000 or less, as wealthy people. Maybe the Senator 
from Illinois or some other analysis does, but I do not. I think this 
is the backbone of the country. They are the people who bear the 
largest burden of the Tax Code. They are having a hard time. Their 
income tax is at the highest level since World War II. It is so high 
now that with the disposable income available to them, to do the things 
we expect them to do about raising their families, they cannot do any 
more.

  So we may just have a disagreement over who is considered wealthy.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator, my guess is when we are talking 
about the upper 20 percent of America, we are not talking about those 
of 75,000 or less; we are probably talking about $75,000 annual income 
or more.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I said that 30 percent of these accounts, as was the 
case with the account we have already passed, would inure to their 
benefit, which is not bad.
  Mr. DURBIN. Less than a third?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes. So two-thirds plus of this, in my judgment--we 
can disagree--is going exactly where we want it to go.
  If I might add one other point, unlike the IRA we have already 
passed, and unlike any other IRA, this account allows sponsors. We do 
not know the data on that. It is a benefit to even the lower income. It 
allows parents, families, unions, benevolent associations, and 
employers to help open these accounts. From what I have seen of people 
trying to utilize new tools and resources, it is the struggling 
families who are most likely to use these accounts.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will make one final comment and then I will yield the 
floor because I see the Senator from Massachusetts waiting. I do not 
disagree with the Senator from Georgia in his intent on helping 
families pay for education. That, too, is a concern of my colleague, 
Senator Schumer from New York, who supports the President's plan of 
deductibility of college expenses on your tax returns. I think that is 
an excellent way of increasing opportunity in education.
  I do believe, if we are going to take our money and our surplus and 
invest it in education, we should look to those who, frankly, need the 
most help. I think it would be the working families. I am afraid the 
Senator's approach, according to the Treasury Department analysis, 
gives 70 percent of the benefits to families in the upper 20 percent of 
America. It tips the scales heavily to the wealthiest families. I agree 
with the Senator's comments, and I hope his

[[Page S903]]

bill will reflect we should direct more help to working families 
struggling to put their kids through college. I am afraid, as I see it, 
his bill does not do that.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I will be very quick, and then I will yield so the 
Senator from Massachusetts will have his time.
  Let me say, there is apparently some disagreement about the flow of 
the funds. Joint Tax states 70 percent of all benefits goes to families 
of $75,000 or less. Again, I repeat the means test is no different than 
the one that was established by the President and the Congress on the 
previous smaller savings accounts that we have implemented and, as I 
said, applauded.
  I do appreciate the question from the Senator from Illinois and his 
interest, which I think is probably shared by all of us one way or the 
other, in making a very positive education environment for all in the 
United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
yielding. I, like others, have differences with the Senator, but I 
admire his persistence in this idea and his strong commitment to this 
proposal. Many of us welcome the opportunity to debate issues on 
education policy at this point in the session. We have been in session 
for a number of weeks, and we have dealt with the issues of the 
Marianas, bankruptcy, and one or two judges. As we come into the first 
of March, we are very slow and reluctant in addressing concerns of 
families. This is one of the issues of education.
  There always seems to be some interruption. All of us are looking 
forward to visiting with our Governors. I am looking forward to 
visiting with mine. Nonetheless, sometime we ought to be about the 
Nation's business, and the Nation's business is the whole role of how 
the Federal, State, and local governments are going to provide 
assistance to make sure we have the best educational system.
  We have a responsibility in the area of health care to ensure a full 
Patients' Bill of Rights so families know the information they get from 
the doctor is the doctor's recommendation and not an insurance agent's 
recommendation who is more interested in the bottom line.
  We have a responsibility to debate and act on the question of 
prescription drugs. There is not a group of seniors in my State of 
Massachusetts who do not place prescription drugs as their foremost 
concern, and it is a legitimate concern.
  We ought to be about the business of addressing those issues. These 
are some things on the minds of people.
  We have started this debate on education policy, and we will be 
following up tomorrow in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  The American people ought to understand that we provide very little 
out of the Federal budget to education. As my friend and colleague from 
Nevada has pointed out, it is about 2 percent. Most American families 
say: Out of $1.7 trillion, we ought to be providing more than 2 
percent.
  Most would want us to do it, most believe we should do it, but we 
have not done it. It has been resisted. I imagine we will see further 
resistance in the Senate debate, finding there are other priorities.
  As we know, 7 to 7.5 cents of every Federal dollar goes to the local 
communities. We are talking about scarce resources. We have to 
understand we either appropriate the money or we provide tax breaks or 
tax incentives. It all basically comes from the budget.
  What we are talking about today is $1.2 billion over the next 5 years 
and how it will be used. The Dodd amendment says there are public 
policy issues related to education that have a higher priority. He will 
insist the Senate vote to decide whether we are going to provide the 
$1.2 billion to assist local communities to offset the additional costs 
that are necessary for needy children, or whether the $1.2 billion will 
go to 7 percent of families with children in private schools.
  Half the money in the Coverdell proposal, which is represented by one 
of these little figures on this chart, will go to benefit one of these 
figures and the other half will go to benefit those who go to private 
schools. That is not something we have admitted or stated. That is even 
according to Mr. Coverdell, as he said on February 23:

       The division of the money is 50-50.

  At the start of this debate, we have to ask: Where do we want the 
limited resources to go? Do we want to strengthen the public school 
systems, or do we want to divert scarce resources to the private 
schools? Private schools play an enormously important role in our 
society, but we are talking about scarce resources.

  What does the Dodd amendment do? It says if we have $1.2 billion, we 
ought to use that $1.2 billion to help all the families in communities 
across the country who are burdened, in one sense, but also given an 
opportunity in another sense, to provide some decent education for 
children who have special needs. That opportunity developed in the 
1970s as a result of Supreme Court cases decisions that said the 
guarantee by the States of educating their children also applies to 
special-needs children.
  Our friend, Governor Weicker of the State of Connecticut, introduced 
legislation to help offset those additional needs for those schools. 
Over time, we have been trying to increase funding for special-needs 
children.
  I take my hat off to our good friend from the State of New Hampshire, 
Mr. Gregg, who insists we put this as the first priority for all 
Government funding. Many of us believe we should increase funding for 
special-needs children. Senator Dodd's amendment, which is so 
compelling, says: Look, if we have $1.2 billion, let's take that $1.2 
billion and help all the communities across the country that are 
providing assistance to special-needs children. That is more important 
than taking half of that money and giving it to the private school 
students. I think a pretty good case can be made for that.
  Senator Dodd has offered an amendment in the past to do exactly that. 
On April 23, 1998, he offered that amendment, and it failed by a narrow 
margin. He was able to marshal almost half of the Senate. We are very 
hopeful the Dodd amendment will be successful today.
  I offered a similar amendment in March of 1999 at the time the Senate 
was considering the $792 billion tax break bill. The tax break bill--
remember that?
  We listened to many of our colleagues talking about the importance of 
having special education and funding special education. I offered an 
amendment that said: All right, let's adopt what would have been part 
of the tax break bill to fund special education needs for the next 10 
years. Do you know what that would have meant in terms of a reduction 
in the tax break bill? It would have reduced the total tax break for 
fortunate individuals and corporations by only a fifth. Four-fifths 
would have still gone through the Senate.
  That was a pretty good opportunity to say: If we are really serious 
about trying to do something for special-needs children, let's go ahead 
and take the opportunity with real money--not authorizations, not on 
appropriations that may be rejected or vetoed because they have other 
kinds of proposals; no gimmicks--let's do something that is actually 
going to go to the President of the United States, something that is 
going to go on through and at least be considered. Not a single vote--
not one vote, not five votes, not four votes, not three votes, not two 
votes--not a single one came from that side of the aisle.
  You can imagine why many of us, when we hear these statements on the 
other side about the importance of special education and special needs, 
why we take that with a good deal of doubt.
  The fact of the matter is, many of these proposals that we will have 
an opportunity to debate later on have some important impact on special 
education. In smaller classes, teachers can help identify those 
children with some special needs and can be separated out to be given 
the extra help and assistance they need, instead of the children being 
thrown into the situation where it makes it much more complicated and 
expensive.
  Early involvement, through the expansion of the Head Start Program, 
most importantly, can get some help and assistance to those students; 
and, secondly, save a good deal of resources in funding.

[[Page S904]]

  We do not believe you ought to place one group of children against 
another, but some do. Those of us who have been in support of the 
President's program, Vice President Gore's excellent program, with an 
emphasis on early intervention, do not believe in pitting one child 
against another.
  We will have the opportunity to follow Senator Dodd's leadership and 
say: Let's just take this funding--half of the money goes to about 10 
percent of the children, and half of it goes to 90 percent of the 
children--let's say: We find that this is sufficiently important that 
we are going to provide the funds for all of the special needs.
  I do not want to take much time of the Senate, but I do want to 
review a little bit about education policy in recent times because I 
believe this is a matter of enormous importance and consequence. We 
ought to understand whether this is just a policy difference between us 
or whether this is something that is much more basic and fundamental.
  I have here statistics going back for the last 6 years under 
Republican leadership, showing where the Republican leadership has been 
on the issue of cuts in education funding.
  In the 1995 House rescissions bill, we have $1.7 billion enacted. It 
had been appropriated, and the President signed it. The new leadership 
said: We are going to go right back there under rescissions and take 
$1.7 billion. That was done just after the election.

  In 1996, House Appropriations cut $3.9 billion below the previous 
year. In 1997, it was $3.1 billion below the President; in 1998, it was 
$200 million below the President; in 1999, $2 billion below the 
President; for the fiscal year 2000 House bill, $2.8 billion below the 
President.
  You cannot say: Well, you can do anything with figures around here. 
That is a pretty consistent record of where the Republican leadership 
has been over the last 6 or 7 years on the priorities of education.
  Those of us who believe in investing in children, who believe we need 
a partnership at the Federal, State, and local level, are not saying 
that money, in and of itself, is going to provide all the answers. But 
what we are saying is: Investing in resources is a pretty clear 
indication of a nation's priorities and a pretty clear indication of 
what is believed to be important.
  Where you had 3 or 4 years ago the cutting of billions and billions 
of dollars, and abolishing the Department of Education, now we come out 
with $1.2 billion--some $300 million a year--as their first priority in 
the areas of education.
  I have some difficulty in believing that is really what the American 
people want. I think the American people want us to say: Let's get the 
best ideas among Democrats and Republicans to get the best trained 
teachers and put them in every classroom in America. And let's find out 
how to make sure that teacher is going to stay there. Let's find out 
how we are going to be able to cut back on the size of larger schools 
so we can get students into smaller classes, which has been 
demonstrated to show a higher degree of academic performance.
  Let's talk about afterschool programs and how they are being tied to 
performance in universities and how they are being tied to the private 
sector, where there are job opportunities with help and assistance from 
tutorials.
  Let's talk about programs such as the one I saw just yesterday in my 
home city of Boston. Intel, one of the great American companies, is 
doing workshops to try to provide help and assistance to inner-city 
kids. They are going to open up programs around the country. Let's talk 
about what they are doing. If those programs are so good, we ought to 
be able to replicate them. Let's talk about how we are going to provide 
greater opportunities for kids to continue on into higher education.
  It seems to me the American people want this debate and want it out 
here on the floor of the Senate. But, oh, no, we have this particular 
proposal.
  That is why I think it is so important that we have the opportunity 
to vote on the Dodd proposal. What we are basically saying is: All 
right, $1.2 billion; let's put this in the areas of special needs. 
Let's go ahead and help them. That is an important area. Let's go on 
and provide that kind of help and assistance.
  Senator Dodd knows so well, as others, that before we had the IDEA, 
we had about 5.5 million children locked in closets who never went to 
school.
  Now we find that children who are going to complete high school, 57 
percent of the disabled youth are competitively employed within 5 years 
after leaving high school, compared to an employment rate of 25 percent 
for disabled adults who have never benefited from IDEA. When we invest 
in these children, we get results. The Dodd amendment is what is going 
to get results for some of the neediest causes for families in this 
country.
  In my own State of Massachusetts, there are small towns where 
families have these kinds of challenges with regard to a particular 
individual. The schools have to provide those services. It provides a 
very significant increased burden on the taxes of those local 
communities. Let's say, look, wherever they are, if they are in 
Georgia, if they are in Illinois, if they are in Massachusetts, they 
are going to get some help and assistance from this particular program.
  There is a priority. That has a higher priority than just providing 
this kind of money that is going to be scattered the way it has been 
indicated. That is the essence.
  I see the good Senator from Connecticut, our leader on this fight 
time and again. We commend him for staking out, in the first real order 
of business, the first real order of debate, the importance and 
significance of this amendment and helping to provide for families who 
have special needs children.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his presentation 
this morning and his leadership throughout his career in the Senate on 
issues of education. There is no Senator on the floor who can hold a 
candle to Senator Kennedy when it comes to issues of education. He not 
only understands them in a better way than most of us, but he is more 
articulate, forceful, and committed than any Member of the Senate. It 
is a pleasure to join him in this debate this morning.
  I think he has very convincingly laid out the case of the difference 
between the two parties. Our Republican friends on the opposite side of 
the aisle have a different view of education than Democrats do. There 
have been those on the Republican side who have called for abolishing 
the Department of Education in Washington. There have been those, as 
well, who have suggested that if the Federal Government has a role, it 
should be in supporting private schools with the so-called voucher 
system.
  There have been those who have opposed suggestions from the President 
and others that if the Federal Government is to have a role, albeit a 
small role, it should be focused on things that are so important for 
every school district across America, whether it is modernizing our 
school buildings so the kids who presently are enrolled have an 
opportunity and access to the best technology to prepare them for the 
future, whether it means teacher training so the teachers we respect so 
much today can continue to develop their skills, so the children coming 
in the classroom really are, in many cases, taught by teachers who 
understand the new technology as well or better than the children.
  There is a standing joke in my office that if you can't understand 
how the computer works, look for a teenager. I think most of us 
understand that young people because they have been raised in this 
culture and have no fear of this machinery, many times eclipse the 
skills and talents of even the teachers in the classroom.
  Democrats believe on focusing some money on teacher training. A 
better trained teacher is going to do a better job in the classroom. Of 
course, the reduction of class size is part of this as well. I have 
seen school districts in my home State of Illinois and the city of 
Chicago, in a more Republican area in general, Du Page County, a 
wealthier area, where teachers tell me, with a smaller class size they 
can pick out the kids who need special help and make sure they keep up 
with the class. They can also identify the gifted kids and give them 
better and tougher assignments so they can improve, too. These

[[Page S905]]

are the issues on which Democrats have said time and again we should 
focus.
  Our colleague, Senator Dodd from Connecticut, has joined us. I am 
happy he is here because he has a very critical amendment. Where 
Senator Coverdell's bill suggests we will focus half of the assistance 
in this new program on private schools where only 10 percent of our 
kids attend school and where he has said the vast majority of the 
resources in his bill will go to the wealthiest families in our 
country, those in the upper 20 percent, Senator Dodd comes in with a 
much more practical and grounded alternative.
  I will leave it to the Senator to explain it in detail, the idea that 
we would provide school districts across America, rich and poor, 
wherever they are located, assistance in helping to educate kids with 
special needs. Meet with any school board member, any school 
superintendent, or many teachers for that matter, and ask them about 
the challenges of today. They will tell you that kids with special 
needs, disabled kids, need special attention so they can develop their 
highest potential. It costs money to do it. It takes extra resources. 
We have made the commitment in theory. What Senator Dodd suggests is we 
should put our money where our commitment is and say to these school 
districts that we will help you with these kids. We believe it is worth 
the investment.
  At this point I see Senator Dodd is on the floor and prepared to 
discuss his amendment. I am happy to yield to my colleague from the 
State of Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me 
also thank our good friend, the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid, for 
introducing the amendment on my behalf. Unfortunately, I was delayed 
this morning due to a problem with my flight. I apologize for not 
getting here earlier and I am grateful to my colleague for stepping in 
to help.
  I see my good friend from Georgia is here. We have gone around on 
this issue in the past. I have great respect and admiration for him. We 
disagree on this issue, so I am sure we will have a good healthy debate 
about it.
  In fact, we may not disagree about it at all. What I am trying to do 
with this amendment, I presume my friend from Georgia and others would 
also support. Let me briefly outline the amendment for my colleagues. 
While we only have a few minutes this morning, we will resume debate 
this afternoon.
  It is somewhat ironic, in a way, that we will be meeting in about 22 
minutes with the national Governors. We will gather together and have a 
joint meeting. I commend the leadership for arranging that.
  Due to this meeting, I think it is worthy of note that the Governors 
are headed up by Mike Leavitt, Governor from Utah; Governor Mike 
Huckabee, vice chair on Human Resources from Arkansas; Governor Jim 
Hunt from North Carolina, who is the chair of the Committee on Human 
Resources; and Governor Tom Carper of Delaware, who is co-chair with 
Mike Leavitt of the National Governors' Association.
  This letter is dated a year ago, but it was about a year ago that we 
engaged in a similar debate. At that time, a letter was sent to our 
colleague, Pete Domenici, chairman of the Committee on the Budget. The 
letter specifically addresses the issue my amendment proposes to 
correct or to at least offer to provide some support for special 
education funding. The letter says:

       As you prepare the budget resolution for the coming fiscal 
     year, the nation's Governors urge Congress to live up to 
     agreements already made to meet current funding commitments 
     to states before funding new initiatives or tax cuts in the 
     federal budget.
       The federal government committed to fully fund--defined as 
     40 percent of the costs--the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (IDEA) when the law, formerly known as the 
     Education of the Handicapped Act, was passed in 1975. 
     Currently, the federal government's contribution amounts to 
     only 11 percent, and states are funding the balance to assist 
     school districts in providing special education and related 
     services. Although we strongly support providing the 
     necessary services and support to help all students succeed, 
     the costs associated with implementing IDEA are placing an 
     increased burden on states.
       We are currently reallocating existing state funds from 
     other programs or committing new funds to ensure that 
     students with disabilities are provided a ``free and 
     appropriate public education.'' In some cases, we are taking 
     funds from existing education programs to pay for the costs 
     of educating our students with disabilities because we 
     believe that all students deserve an equal opportunity to 
     learn. Therefore, Governors urge Congress to honor its 
     original commitment and fully fund 40 percent of Part B 
     services as authorized by IDEA so the goals of the act can be 
     achieved.

  Mr. President, I also have a letter, dated February 23, 2000, from 
the National School Boards Association opposing the underlying bill, 
the Affordable Education Act, and supporting my amendment. 
Specifically, I quote from the letter:

       NSBA believes that a greater benefit for children and 
     taxpayers alike will occur if this money is spent meeting the 
     unmet federal commitment in special education. Throughout the 
     country, taxpayers are indirectly paying higher school and 
     property taxes in their districts to compensate for the 
     federal funding shortfall in the education of children with 
     disabilities. Rather than create a tax benefit for a select 
     few, applying these funds to special education would benefit 
     more taxpayers and public schools.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letters from the Governors, as well 
as the National School Boards Association, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                                    March 9, 1999.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you prepare the budget resolution for 
     the coming fiscal year, the nation's Governors urge Congress 
     to live up to agreements already made to meet current funding 
     commitments to states before funding new initiatives or tax 
     cuts in the federal budget.
       The Federal Government committed to fully fund--defined as 
     40 percent of other costs--the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (IDEA) when the law, formerly known as 
     Education of the Handicapped Act, was passed in 1975. 
     Currently, The Federal Government's contribution amounts to 
     only 11 percent, and states are funding the balance to assist 
     school districts in providing special education and related 
     services. Although we strongly support providing the 
     necessary services and support to help all students succeed, 
     the costs associated with implementing IDEA are placing an 
     increased burden on states.
       We are currently reallocating existing state funds from 
     other programs or committing new funds to ensure that 
     students with disabilities are provided a ``free and 
     appropriate public education.'' In some cases, we are taking 
     funds from existing education programs to pay for the costs 
     of educating our students with disabilities because we 
     believe that all students deserve an equal opportunity to 
     learn. Therefore, Governors urge Congress to honor its 
     original commitment and fully fund 40 percent of Part B 
     services as authorized by IDEA so the goals of the act can be 
     achieved.
       This is such a high priority for Governors, that at the 
     recent National Governors' Association Winter Meeting, it was 
     a topic of discussion with the President as well as the 
     subject of an adopted, revised policy attached. Many thanks 
     for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Thomas R. Carper.
     Gov. Michael O. Leavitt.
     Gov. James B. Hunt, Jr.,
       Chair, Committee on Human Resources.
     Gov. Mike Huckabee,
       Vice Chair, Committee on Human Resources.
                                  ____



                           National School Boards Association,

                                Alexandria, VA, February 23, 2000.

     Re Oppose S. 1134, the Affordable Education Act

     Member,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the nation's 95,000 local boards 
     members, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) urges 
     you to oppose S. 1134, the Affordable Education Act.
       NSBA is opposed to this legislation that would expand 
     education savings accounts to allow tax-free expenditures for 
     K-12 public, private, and religious school tuition. NSBA 
     believes that limited public funds could be better invested 
     in priority areas of K-12 education. Specifically, Congress 
     should focus scarce tax dollars on the federal government's 
     current obligations to our nation's public schools.
       The Joint Tax Committee estimated that K-12 education 
     savings accounts come with a price tag of well over $2 
     billion over ten years. In addition to the expense of this 
     program, education savings accounts would disproportionately 
     be used by affluent families and provide very little benefits 
     to lower and middle income families. NSBA believes that a 
     greater benefit for children and taxpayers alike will occur 
     if this money is spent meeting the unmet federal commitment 
     in special education. Throughout the country, taxpayers are 
     indirectly paying higher school and property taxes in their 
     districts to compensate for the federal funding shortfall in

[[Page S906]]

     the education of children with disabilities. Rather then 
     create a tax benefit for a select few, applying these funds 
     to special education would benefit more taxpayers and public 
     schools.
       Providing additional funds for students with disabilities 
     will enable Congress to take a small step forward in 
     eliminating the unfunded mandate on local school districts. 
     This, in turn, will free up funds at the local level to help 
     increase student achievement for all students.
       NSBA urges you to oppose the education savings accounts 
     legislation. If you have questions, please contact Dan 
     Fuller, director of federal programs, at 703-838-6763.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael A. Resnick,
                                     Associate Executive Director.

  Mr. DODD. Let me again make the point I made last week and will make 
again this afternoon. There are parts of this bill the Senator from 
Georgia is offering with which I have no disagreement. However, it 
seems to me that we are talking about relatively scarce resources. 
While we are in a surplus--and we all applaud this fact--we all know we 
don't have all the money we would like to spend in educational areas. 
But to have a tax break of a $1.2 billion over 5 years, the cumulative 
benefit, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, would amount to 
$20.50--$20.50 on average.
  My amendment would provide a benefit that would go back to our 
communities where we know from our mayors and county executives how 
difficult it is for local taxpayers to support the costs of special 
needs education. In some cases, the cost of a special needs child can 
be $50,000 or more per year. Now, on average, it is a lot lower, but 
there are cases that are not that rare, in fact where the costs are 
very high, that is borne by the local property taxpayers, or the State 
taxpayers.
  We made a commitment--the Federal Government--and said: we think you 
ought to provide an education for all children in this country. We 
think it is important to educate children with disabilities. I will 
tell you what we will do, communities and States. If you will support 
this effort and put up 60 percent of the money, we will put up 40 
percent of the money.
  Despite the fact we made that commitment more than a quarter century 
ago, we have only gotten up to 12.7 percent. Now, $1.2 billion doesn't 
get you to 40 percent, but it gets you a lot closer. That is real tax 
relief, what the Governors are asking us to do, what the national 
school boards are asking us to do, and what our mayors and county 
executives have asked us to do.
  I can't think of a better way to allocate $1.2 billion if we are 
going to do it at this juncture, do what the Governors asked us to do 
and what the mayors asked us to do--that is, be the partner we promised 
to be on special education.
  My mayors in Connecticut tell me it is the most important issue to 
them. I asked them what we can do to help them out. They say: Help us 
in this area. You made the promise, so why don't you do it?
  Instead, what we do too often is pit people against each other in 
local communities, where a family, unfortunately, has been hit with a 
child born with a significant disability and, all of a sudden, the cost 
of educating that child is high, and there are people who resent that 
fact locally. It creates tensions in our towns and cities. I don't 
think that ought to be the case. So with scarce resources, why not 
pitch in, why not meet the commitments we have made.
  This may take a supermajority vote. I suspect there is going to be a 
point of order raised against this amendment that will require 60 
votes. I have listened to my colleagues over and over, going back some 
7, 8, 10 years ago when I first offered this amendment in the Budget 
Committee. I lost the amendment on a tie vote. To the credit of the 
majority leader, Trent Lott, he supported me, as did several other 
Republicans. However, I lost some Democratic votes on the Budget 
Committee. Almost every year since then, I have offered some variation 
of this amendment. We have come close some years, not so close in 
others. But all of us know when we go back to our States, this is an 
issue our constituents and their representatives at the local level 
care about, and they want the Federal Government to live up to the 
commitments we made so many years ago.
  It is important to children with special needs. Again, I am preaching 
to the choir, I suspect, because all of my colleagues care about 
education. But if we are going to have the best educated population 
this country has ever produced--and I think we need to do that if we 
are going to succeed in the 21st century--then we have to make 
intelligent investments of taxpayer money when it comes to achieving 
that goal.
  We have children with special education needs. This is an opportunity 
now for us to not provide a $20.50 average tax break, but to get money 
back to these communities that will allow them to provide the kind of 
educational opportunity for children with special needs who can be 
productive, contributing members of our society. But if children with 
disabilities don't get the educational tools they need, they too often 
face insurmountable obstacles.
  Again, it is not that what the Senator from Georgia has proposed is 
necessarily a terrible idea; I am not suggesting that. I suggest if you 
have limited resources, and we have clear choices--I think most 
Americans when confronted with the choice of getting a $20.50 tax break 
over 5 years, or seeing this money go to defray local property taxes or 
State taxes, to live up to the commitment on special education, I 
believe most Americans would choose the latter; they would see this as 
a better investment of their tax money by reducing those costs.
  So I also want to add, if I could at this point, a list of what it 
costs each State, the charts that will spell out in each State the 
special education costs. They are very high. These are very high costs 
in terms of what we are contributing. To give you an idea, in the State 
of California, in special education costs, we come up with 5 percent of 
the money, the State comes up with 71 percent, and the local government 
comes up with 24 percent. Going on down this list of various States, to 
give you some sense of it. In the top State I can find, Indiana, we do 
17 percent, the State does 63, and the local does 20. Most of them are 
in the single-digit area where it is 4, 5, 6, 9 percent coming from the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of education 
expenditures reported by selective States on special education be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        TABLE I-2--SPECIAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES AS REPORTED BY SELECTED STATES
                                       [19th annual report to Congress: Section I--The costs of special education]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average State-     Percentage of support by source
                                           Total special       Associated    defined special ---------------------------------------
                 State                       education          special         education                                             Confidence in data
                                           expenditures*       education     expenditure per    Federal       State        Local
                                                            student count**      student
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................    A $3,070,700,000        D 550,293           $5,580            5           71           24  SC
Colorado..............................       A 260,337,092         E 76,374            3,409            9           31           60  HC
Connecticut...........................         627,331,211           73,792            8,501            4           37           59  HC
Florida...............................     B 1,470,186,078        D 290,630            5,059            6           56           38  C
Indiana...............................       B 350,430,294          127,079            2,758           17           63           20  NC
Iowa..................................       B 277,700,000         E 65,039            4,270           11           70           19  HC
Kansas................................       B 326,106,608           47,489            6,867            7           54           39  HC
Louisiana.............................         427,924,416        E 108,317            3,951            6           94            0  C
Maine.................................       B 145,000,000           30,565            4,744            8           59           33  HC
Maryland..............................         757,328,777           95,752            7,909            5           26           69  HC
Massachusetts.........................       1,065,523,416          149,431            7,131            6           30           64  HC
Michigan..............................     B 1,334,000,000        F 188,703            7,069            6           34           60  HC
Minnesota.............................       A 689,656,932         D 96,542            7,144            6           70           24  NC
Missouri..............................         436,778,659        G 121,419            3,597           10           30           60  C
Montana...............................          54,865,132           17,881            3,068           14           60           26  HC

[[Page S907]]

 
Nevada................................         202,369,114           24,624            8,218            4           40           56  C
New Mexico............................       B 250,000,000           45,364            5,511            9           90            1  SC
North Carolina........................       C 344,809,332          142,394            2,422           15           76            9  HC
North Dakota..........................          54,560,122           12,180            4,479           10           31           59  SC
Rhode Island..........................         147,300,000           25,143            5,858            5           36           59  HC
South Dakota..........................          61,618,034           15,208            4,052           13           49           38  HC
Vermont...............................          79,155,945         H 10,131            7,813            5           39           56  HC
Virginia..............................         608,692,266        D 129,498            4,700            9           23           68  C
Wisconsin.............................       A 630,000,000           95,552            6,593            6           62           32  C
                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for all reporting States....      13,929,607,674        2,581,905            5,395            7           53           40  ...................
                                       =============================================================================================
    Total for highly confident or            9,514,260,326        1,750,477            5,435            7           44           49  ...................
     confident States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*States reported for the 1993-94 school year except as designated below.
**Count of students reported by the State associated with the reported total expenditure; includes age range 3-21 except as designated below.
A 1992-93    B 1994-95    C 1990-91    D Includes age range 0-22    E Includes age range 0-21    F Includes age range 0-26    G Includes age range 3-22
    H Includes age range 5-22.
Confidence in Data:
HC--Highly confident    SC--Somewhat confident    C--Confident    NC--Not confident.
 
Source: CSEF Survey on State Special Education Funding Systems, 1994-95.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is unfortunate, in a sense, to begin this 
dialog with such a piece of legislation that my friend from Georgia has 
offered, which I think is not well conceived in terms of the impact it 
could have, if we chose to dedicate it to special education.
  While education may be the issue foremost in the minds of the 
American public, I highly doubt that the public has this legislation 
before us this morning in mind when they think of ways the Federal 
Government could be helping to improve our schools in this country.
  Education savings accounts, as proposed in this legislation, 
represent, in my view, bad education policy, bad tax policy, and a 
waste of valuable Federal resources that could be so helpful if 
directed to public schools and special education needs. In fact, the 
legislation offered by our friend and colleague from Georgia offers 
very little to public schools.
  Remember, there were 55 million kids in this country getting up and 
going to school a couple of hours ago. They went off to elementary and 
secondary schools this morning across the country; 5 million went to a 
private or parochial school; 50 million went to a public school. Even 
if we try to take every kid out of a public school and put them in a 
private school, they would not fit. The overwhelming majority of kids 
who went to school this morning went to a public school. Certainly, 
while we bear a responsibility to try to improve the quality of 
education for all children, we certainly have a unique and special 
responsibility to see to it that public education gets our undivided 
attention--at least the majority of our attention on this issue, not at 
the exclusion of the others.
  Certainly, we have a very high degree of responsibility to see that 
these children are going to get the quality education they deserve. 
According to the Joint Tax Committee, not a partisan committee, the 
average benefit per child in public school would be approximately 
$20.50 over 5 years. I ask the question: How is the family of a public 
school student going to improve their child's education environment 
with an average benefit of $5 a year? I believe, however, that we can 
salvage the bill before us and make a real contribution to the work of 
teachers, parents, and our communities.
  My amendment simply does the following: It takes the $1.2 billion in 
this proposal and sends it down instead to local schools to help meet 
the costs of special education. This straightforward proposal offers an 
alternative to the underlying legislation, which will make a real 
difference, in my view, in education and in our schools.
  Upon the enactment of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 
in 1975, the Federal Government committed to our State and local 
governments around this country--to all 50 States--that it would 
contribute--we would, the Federal Government would, the Congress 
would--40 percent of the funds needed to provide special education 
services. That was 25 years ago we made that commitment.
  Presently, the Federal contribution for special education is 12.7 
percent of their special education costs. And that varies from State to 
State. The Federal contribution to special education has never risen 
above 13 percent. The Federal Government, today, would need to boost 
its IDEA funding an estimated $15.8 billion to live up to its original 
commitment to our Nation's special needs children in our districts and 
States across the country.
  The amendment I offer this morning would redirect the $1.2 billion 
over 5 years spent by the Coverdell initiative to IDEA. These funds 
would directly aid State and local school districts in providing the 
critically important special education services children with 
disabilities deserve.
  I often hear from school and town officials in my State of 
Connecticut--as I am sure the Presiding Officer does in Idaho, and my 
colleague from Georgia does as well--about the high costs associated 
with providing special education services. Our local school districts 
are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities 
which at times can be overwhelming to smaller rural communities. In 
Connecticut, the State spends more than $700 million annually, or 18 
percent of the State's overall education budget, to fund special 
education programs. In Torrington, CT, special education costs recently 
increased from $635,000 to $1.3 million over a two year period. 
Torrington is a relatively small, midsized, urban community in my 
State. It is not Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, or Stamford. 
Torrington is a small town. $1.3 million in that small town's budget 
goes to provide special education services. However, for my part, I 
believe the issue is not that special education services may cost too 
much. They are clearly a good investment, in my view, over the long 
term. Rather, the issue is that the Federal Government contributes too 
little.

  Congress passed the IDEA legislation. I believe Congress should 
fulfill its commitment to our Nation's special needs children and our 
communities by increasing its share, as we committed to do, of special 
education costs before we enact legislation proposals such as the one 
before us that do nothing, in my view, to improve the quality of our 
public schools.
  Over the last few years, this body has greatly strengthened the 
federal commitment to children with disabilities. Since fiscal year 
1998, Congress has increased special education funding by 25 percent. 
However, that money is spread thinly across 50 States.
  Despite the Federal Government's recent increases in its support for 
special education services, the cost of providing these services has 
risen dramatically in recent years. Our recent increases in funding are 
not keeping pace with increased costs. Today, providing special 
education services to a child with a disability costs about 2.3 times 
that of regular education. Special education spending grew 19 percent 
of all school spending in 1996 across the country.
  Thus, changes in enrollment in special education programs in recent 
years is also a key factor behind increases in costs for special 
education

[[Page S908]]

programs. In the last 5 years alone, schools' special education 
enrollment has increased by 12.6 percent. Today, 1 out of every 10 
students in public schools receives special education services under 
the IDEA legislation.
  In my own State of Connecticut, approximately 14 percent of all 
students are enrolled in special education programs. Our State and 
local school districts need our help. The amendment I am offering today 
moves us in the right direction.
  According to a 1996 Gallup poll, 47 percent of those surveyed said 
America is spending too little of its education budget on students with 
special needs. Only 5 percent of those surveyed reported that too much 
is being spent on special needs children. The amendment I offer Senator 
Coverdell's legislation would address this public concern.
  By increasing the Federal contribution to States for special 
education services, I believe we will greatly aid State and local 
school districts by allowing them to reduce the disproportionate share 
of special education services they have had to carry for far too long. 
When school districts are forced to increase the amount of funds for 
special education, they are often forced to raise taxes or reduce 
funding for nonspecial education programs. These school districts need 
our help. More importantly, though, children with disabilities need our 
help more.
  Demonstrating the importance of special education funding to our 
States, the National Governors' Association--again, I refer to the 
letter behind me to the Senate Budget Committee chairman--asks Congress 
to fulfill its commitment to special education funding before ``funding 
new tax initiatives or tax cuts'' such as being proposed by the 
Coverdell proposal.
  Additionally, the National School Boards Association letter dated 
February 23 to all Senators says, ``Rather than create a tax benefit 
for a select few, applying these funds to special education would 
benefit more taxpayers and public schools'' across the country.

  We often like to talk in this body about what the public wants and 
what they need. Yet here we have the National School Boards 
Association, those who every day have to make the tough choices 
deciding how to operate our schools across the Nation, asking us not to 
enact tax relief that would only benefit a select few and telling us 
what our children really need--better qualified teachers, smaller class 
sizes, and more funds for special education.
  Today, I hope as we come back later in the afternoon to this 
amendment that our colleagues will rally behind us. We could accomplish 
a great deal. It would be a major first step in coming together in a 
bipartisan way to do something about which all of us have talked to our 
States about for many years, and that is to be a better partner when it 
comes to educating children with special needs. We have not been the 
full partner we promised to be. The costs are going up, and the local 
taxpayer is being saddled with that burden.
  We have an obligation and I think a responsibility. We can live up 
this obligation this afternoon by voting for this amendment and saying 
that the $1.2 billion in this proposal we will given back to our States 
to give to these children, to these mayors, to the county executives, 
and to our Governors to see to it that these children and our 
communities will have an opportunity to meet those responsibilities.
  I see that the hour for us to recess is about at hand. I will not 
delay the proceedings of the Senate any longer except to note that I 
will come back this afternoon to talk about this further and invite my 
colleagues to come forward on both sides of the aisle to engage in this 
discussion. We haven't had many votes this year. We haven't had much of 
an opportunity in this Congress to express what we think the priorities 
of the American public are and how we can fulfill them. But we all know 
education is right at the top of American's priorities, indicating that 
the American public wants this Congress, their Government, to pay 
attention to the needs of the educational responsibilities in our 
country. I think we have a chance to do that today with this amendment.
  Presently, we only contribute 7 cents out of every dollar to 
education. Ninety-three cents comes from local and State taxes. Seven 
cents comes from Washington DC. But here we have a chance, with our 7 
cents, if you will, to do something meaningful for our States and 
meaningful for these families and children with special education 
needs.
  My sincere hope is that when the opportunity arises for us to answer 
the rollcall on how we stand on this issue, this body will vote 
overwhelmingly in support of this amendment and do something very 
meaningful today with a message we can give our Governors as they go 
back to their States, and say, Congress is a partner when it comes to 
special education needs.
  I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I will have a good bit to say about 
this most recent presentation by the Senator from Connecticut. Now is 
not the time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding by previous 
order we are to recess at 11.

                          ____________________