[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6443-S6444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if there is one thing that the Senate
can agree on wholeheartedly, it is that we, as a Nation, need to invest
in our children's educational future. There is no other issue that hits
closer to home for America's families.
But, even as we recognize the importance of education, we must
realize that close to home is where education works best in America,
and simply spending more and more Federal dollars on more and more
Federal ``one size fits all'' education directives will not, by itself,
make our education system perform better.
S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, that the
Senate passed last Thursday contains several provisions that I favor.
The bill contains a modest pilot ``Straight A's'' provision that will
help us build on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act that I
worked to help pass in the 106th Congress to allow States to
consolidate Federal education programs to meet State and local needs.
It also contains an amendment that I sponsored, that will provide
loan forgiveness to Head Start teachers in effort to encourage teachers
to go into early childhood education.
Further, S. 1 expands local flexibility and control by block-granting
funds, consolidating some programs, and includes another amendment that
I sponsored to allow local districts to spend Title II funds, if they
desire, on pupil services personnel.
However, taken as a whole, S. 1 is fiscally irresponsible and
violates my deeply held principles of federalism.
Over the course of my 35 years of public service to the people of
Ohio, I have developed a passion for the issue of federalism--that is,
assigning the appropriate role of the Federal Government in relation to
State and local government.
Our forefathers 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.
Education is one such responsibility, and it has only been in the
last 35 years that the Federal government has had much of a role to
play in education policy, albeit a small one.
As my colleagues know, the Federal Government currently provides
approximately 7 percent of all money spent on education in America,
while 93 percent of the money is provided at the state and local level.
In my view, S. 1 not only violates that principle of federalism and
the proper role of the Federal Government in education, it violates a
principle long-held in this country; and that is, local control of our
schools. I am concerned that this bill will put us on a fast-track
towards thoroughly federalizing education.
As it has been said before on the floor of the Senate, one size does
not fit all when it comes to education. Different districts have
different requirements, with the needs of rural areas differing from
the needs of our cities. And that has been the guiding force in
American education for over 200 years.
But some of my colleagues think the Congress is the national school
board. Well, we are not the national school board here in this
Congress!
With the expansion of education programs that the Federal Government
would undertake in this bill, I have a genuine concern that in ten or
fifteen years, Washington will be dictating what is happening in every
schoolhouse across the nation.
Indeed, in spite of the limited expenditure of Federal funds for
education, this bill stipulates that every school district in America
will test their students from grades 3 through 8.
This testing will occur regardless of how well students are
performing in their particular school districts, and despite the fact
that most of our states have mechanisms already in place that test
students' educational performances.
For instance, just last week in my state of Ohio, Governor Taft
signed into law a bill to revamp the State's testing program.
Governors, legislators, school boards, parents and most of all,
teachers, all understand how onerous additional federally mandated
testing provisions truly are.
I can assure you that there are many teachers in Ohio who are going
to be saying, ``here we go again.''
In addition, there are other provisions in this legislation that
usurp the authority of states and local school districts in their
ability to make decisions that will affect their students.
For example, S. 1 lays out specific steps that states and school
districts must take to address failing schools.
Also under S. 1, the Federal Government would be able to tell States
that its teachers in low-income schools must meet certain Federal
qualification and certification requirements.
Further, the Federal Government would be able to continue to tell
school districts how to spend funds in a number of areas including:
reading; teacher development; technology; and programs for students
with limited English language skills, instead of providing States and
local school districts with full flexibility to spend funds on their
own identified priorities.
Besides violating a long-held principle regarding State and local
control over schools, the bill's fatal flaw is that it increases
authorized and appropriated spending for education by more than 62
percent over last year's budget, and it demolishes the budget
resolution that Congress recently passed.
According to the Senate Budget Committee, ESEA spending totaled $17.6
billion in fiscal year 2001. That same year, we spent over $6.3 billion
on special education. That's a total of $23.9 billion of Federal funds
for kindergarten through grade 12. It also represents a 21 percent
increase over fiscal year 2000.
S. 1 as reported authorized $27.7 billion for ESEA alone for fiscal
year 2002. Since the beginning of the debate on the floor of the Senate
until its passage on June 14th, a period of some 7 weeks, the Senate
added an additional $11.1 billion in education spending for fiscal year
2002.
That's a total of $38.8 billion and, as I said earlier, a 62 percent
increase in just one year!
Over the life of the bill, these amendments add $211 billion to ESEA
for a total of $416 billion. That is an increase of 101 percent over
seven years.
When you consider that the House and Senate agreed to a budget
resolution that included a modest increase in Federal spending over
last year's budget of approximately 5 percent, it's obvious that if we
are to fund ESEA with a 62 percent increase, many legitimate functions
that are the true responsibility of the federal government will not be
met. Otherwise, we will not be able to live within the parameters of
the FY 2002 budget resolution.
I am concerned that a number of my colleagues may have voted for many
of the amendments to S. 1, as well as the final version of the bill--
even with its expensive price tag--believing that the Appropriations
Committee will not fully-fund each and every authorized program.
In my view, we should only vote to authorize what we are actually
willing to appropriate.
That's because, I am very sure that there will be tremendous pressure
on the appropriators to fully-fund the programs included in this bill.
And, at 62 percent over last year's level, the programs in S. 1 just
cost too much money for this Congress to spend.
In fact, I am concerned that the level of spending in this bill will
put us back on the path towards a repeat of last year's ``budget
busting'' appropriations cycle; a cycle that saw the Congress spend
14.3 percent more in non-defense discretionary spending than the year
before.
That is why over the last few weeks, I have been working with my
friend from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, to get the signatures of our
Senate colleagues on a letter to President Bush to show him that we are
willing to support him in his efforts to instill fiscal discipline in
the appropriations process.
In addition, our letter is meant to put Congress on notice that
excessive spending will not be tolerated.
Although President Bush has indicated that he will not hesitate to
use his veto pen on spending bills, Senator Bunning and I felt he
needed a ``Backbone 34''--a contingent of at least 34
[[Page S6444]]
Senators who would agree to uphold the President's veto on bloated
spending bills, should it be necessary.
I am pleased to say that Senator Bunning and I collected the
signatures of 35 Senators who have agreed to ``vote against any
congressional effort to override [vetoes] to enforce fiscal
discipline.''
What these 35 signatures do is send an important message to all of
our colleagues regarding the need for the Senate to stay within the
budget resolution guidelines.
Simply put, the President will have the support he needs in Congress
to sustain his veto of spending bills that are not fiscally
responsible.
As far as I am concerned, the ``easy'' vote would have been to vote
in favor of S. 1. However, I was not elected to the Senate to take the
easy votes and hide from my responsibilities to the taxpayers of Ohio
and this nation.
It is high-time for us to stand-up and show that we have the courage
to be fiscally responsible, to prioritize our spending on the basis of
those responsibilities that are truly Federal in nature, and to make
the tough choices.
If Congress won't do it, I hope the President will, because the
American people deserve to know that their government is serving in
their best interest.
In my view, the funding expectations that are established in S. 1 are
just too unrealistic, and if the President does not insist on a final
bill that is more fiscally responsible, I do not doubt that my friends
across the aisle will demand that he fund ESEA to the fully authorized
level in his next budget.
That's why I urge President Bush to insist that the Members of the
conference committee to S. 1 eliminate the enormous excess in spending
that this bill contains before it is sent back to each of the
respective Houses of Congress for a final vote.
By so doing, it will show the citizens of this nation that their
President truly is not only the Education President, but that he cares
about putting an end to Congress' spendthrift ways as well.
____________________