[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 142 (Wednesday, November 1, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11483-S11485]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          EDUCATION PRIORITIES

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today is November 1st, one month after 
the beginning of the new fiscal year and less than one week before the 
2000 elections. Most of us in this body had anticipated that by now, we 
would be home in our respective states instead of here in Washington. 
However, we are once again in the midst of gridlock with a President 
who, despite his eight years in office, still does not understand how 
to delineate the proper role of government at the federal, state and 
local level.

[[Page S11484]]

  Our forefathers referred to this differentiation as federalism, and 
outlined this relationship in the 10th Amendment:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are 
     reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  Just the other day, in response to his veto of the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill, the President made the claim that we in Congress 
were taking care of ourselves first before we take care of education, 
and that he could not ``in good conscience'' sign a bill that would do 
so.
  I would say to the Chair that I am as committed to the need to 
provide our children with a quality education as any member of this 
body--Democrat or Republican--and just as committed as the President.
  But what the President and my friends on the other side want to do 
with respect to education is all wrong and it smacks of election year 
politics.
  The reality is that the President has his priorities all mixed up. 
Over the last eight years, he has missed a fundamental opportunity to 
reform Social Security. Over the last eight years, he has missed the 
opportunity to reform Medicare. Over the last eight years, he has 
missed the opportunity to revamp and upgrade our military.
  As my colleagues know, both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore 
have made education among their top priorities in their campaigns. As 
such, I believe in a few short months from now, Congress and the new 
President will work together to craft an ESEA reauthorization bill, 
which I am confident will pass quickly and be signed into law.
  However, instead of waiting a few months to allow his successor the 
opportunity to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
ESEA, this President seems consumed with constructing education policy 
through the appropriations process.
  In this appropriation cycle, the President has demanded more than $4 
billion in new education spending primarily for additional teachers, 
after school programs and school facilities, plus billions of 
additional dollars for school construction bonds.
  Let me state emphatically to my colleagues: these activities are not 
federal responsibilities.
  What is a federal responsibility is giving state and local leaders 
the flexibility to spend funds the way that makes the most sense for 
their particular school districts.
  On this side of the aisle, we are saying, ``we trust our teachers, 
and principals and school superintendents to make decisions on 
education spending.'' We are saying we will give you education funds 
and if you want to spend them on hiring teachers or building schools 
you can, but if your needs are new technology or books or training or 
special education, you ought to be able to spend the money on those 
programs. This is the right approach.
  Throughout American history, the federal government's role in 
educating America's youth has traditionally been relatively minor. The 
U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers affirm that the primary 
responsibility for education lies with those closest to our students in 
our states and localities.
  It is parents, teachers, local school districts and states who have 
done the lion's share with respect to educating our children, not 
Washington. And the numbers back up this fact.
  Right now in America, the Federal Government only provides 7 percent 
of the funds for education.
  Let me repeat that because that fact is hardly ever discussed: the 
Federal Government only provides 7 percent of the funds for education 
in this nation.
  That means 93 percent of each dollar that is spent on education comes 
from state taxes or local taxes or some other non-federal source.
  Yet, this Administration would have the American people believe that 
all good things spring from Washington and that ``top down'' command-
and-control policies from the White House work best.
  To them, the local school districts in America--the parents and 
teachers and administrators across this nation--have no earthly idea 
how to educate their own children, nor do they know what their needs 
are.
  Believe it or not, most states are already investing in teachers and 
in school construction and in technology and after school programs.
  Most States have the money to pay for education--for teachers, for 
classroom materials, and for school construction.
  The National Governors Association reports that 46 states have a 
budget surplus and at least 36 states have a comfortable surplus. As a 
result, many states have been able to increase spending on education 
while cutting taxes.
  Does it make sense, then, for the White House to dangle a $4 billion 
carrot in front of America's school districts when so many states are 
reporting budget surpluses and are cutting taxes?
  The federal government has billions of dollars of unmet needs.
  We have a national debt of $5.7 trillion--a debt that is costing us 
$224 billion in interest payments a year, and $600 million per day just 
to pay the interest.
  Out of every federal dollar that is spent, 13 cents will go to pay 
the interest on the national debt. In comparison, 16 cents will go for 
national defense; 18 cents will go for non-defense discretionary 
spending; and 53 cents will go for entitlement spending. Right now, we 
spend more federal tax dollars on debt interest than we do on the 
entire Medicare program.
  Yet the President is willing to spend billions of dollars on what are 
state and local government responsibilities instead of targeting those 
funds on what are true federal needs.
  Clearly, states are the ones with the resources for school 
construction, and they are, in fact, using them for that purpose.
  When I was Governor, I felt so strongly about the importance of 
building new schools that I started the Ohio School Facilities 
Commission. Because of what we were able to do in Ohio, the General 
Accounting Office reported earlier this year that Ohio's increase in 
school construction spending from 1990-1997 was the ninth greatest in 
the nation in percentage terms, and the eighth greatest in terms of 
dollar amount.
  In addition, thanks to the settlement our states have negotiated with 
the tobacco industry--something I fought hard to achieve--Ohio has more 
than $10 billion in additional revenues.
  Governor Taft has pledged to fully address the facility needs of 
every Ohio school district within the next 12 years. His proposal for 
allocating $23 billion in state and local resources included a plan to 
fund the building needs of Ohio's 49 vocational school districts, 
accelerate the pace of work for our largest urban school districts, and 
in short give all districts an opportunity to address their immediate 
facility needs.
  And in New Jersey, Governor Christine Todd Whitman announced recently 
that her state has begun spending money on a plan to build $12 billion 
worth of classrooms over the next 10 years.
  States have invested in teachers as well. In Ohio, we realized that 
young teachers needed mentors to show the way. So we started a program 
that pays teachers $1,500 to serve as mentors to younger teachers.
  And because professional development is important, I initiated Ohio's 
participation in the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards.
  I felt it was so important for us to prepare our teachers that we 
began encouraging teachers in Ohio to participate by paying their 
application fees and the cost to take the test. Teachers who passed the 
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards certification process 
were rewarded with a bonus of $2,500 for 10 years.
  As a result of these commitments, Ohio has ranked fourth in the 
nation in professional development by the National Commission on 
Teaching and America's Future. And Congress continues to recognize the 
value of this organization.
  In short, like most states, Ohio is getting it done for education. 
But what really upsets me is the fact that the President is calling on 
Ohio taxpayers to send money to Washington so that the federal 
government can turn around and send it to states that are not meeting 
their responsibilities--responsibilities that are totally and 
absolutely state or local obligations.
  Right now, the President is pushing to spend $1.75 billion on a 
school class size reduction program, but, with

[[Page S11485]]

120,000 teachers already in Ohio, this program at best yields only 1.5% 
increase in the number of teachers in my state.
  In fact, even if the President gets all the money he wants, 47% of 
Ohio's public school districts and community schools will not even 
receive enough money from the President's program to hire a single 
teacher. Not a single one.
  The Clinton class size reduction proposal undermines local control 
and the ability of school districts to spend money where it is needed 
most. But it goes to the point that the Clinton-Gore administration 
wants to be all things to all people.
  I say to my colleagues, if we really want to do something for 
education, then we should live up to the federal commitment to IDEA.
  In 1975, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA), a program designed to help mainstream young men and women 
with disabilities so they could obtain a quality education. Congress 
thought it was such a national priority, that it promised that the 
Federal Government would pay up to 40 percent of the cost of this 
program.
  However, through fiscal year 2000, the most that Washington provided 
to our school districts under IDEA is 12.6 percent of the educational 
costs for each handicapped child. The remainder of the cost for IDEA 
falls on State and local governments.
  Earlier this year, the Senate passed two amendments that I offered 
regarding IDEA. The first said that Washington should live up to its 
commitment to fund IDEA at the 40% level before it allocates new 
education money.
  The second would allow school districts to use federal money for 
IDEA. Or, if the district wanted to spend the money on new teachers or 
new facilities, they could do so.
  If the Federal Government was fully funding IDEA, most of the 
education initiatives the President and my colleagues are proposing--
school construction, after-school programs, and new teachers--could be 
and likely would be taken care of at the State and local level.
  The Federal Government does have important responsibilities like 
national defense, infrastructure, Medicare and Social Security and we 
must also look at real federal priorities such as prescription drugs 
and responding to the cries of our health care system that has been 
short changed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. However, Washington must 
figure out how to sustain paying for its responsibilities before making 
new commitments.
  Because of the President's spending programs, the Labor HHS 
appropriations bill is, at last count, already at $113 billion. Last 
year, we spent $96 billion for the same bill. That's nearly an 18 
percent increase.
  This appropriations bill contains more than $43 billion for the 
Department of Education. In the President's own budget, he asked for 
only $40 billion. Still, that is almost double the $21.1 billion in 
discretionary education spending allocated by the Federal Government 
just 10 years ago in fiscal year 1991, and nearly 5 times the $8.2 
billion spent on discretionary education spending 25 years ago in 1976.
  The President and my colleagues across the aisle must stop acting as 
if they are the Nation's school board, trying to fund every education 
program possible.
  I believe our State and local leaders should be given the flexibility 
they need to spend their Federal education dollars to live up to our 
obligations with respect to IDEA, freeing them to address state and 
local education needs that have not yet been met.
  It is my hope that in the waning days of this Congress, we will find 
the strength to recognize what is a federal responsibility and what is 
not and act accordingly. We can no longer count on the President to do 
so: it is up to us.

                          ____________________