[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.
____________________