[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.

                          ____________________