[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 83 (Thursday, June 20, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5853-S5856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Miller):
  S. 2653. A bill to reduce the amount of paperwork for special 
education teachers, to make mediation mandatory for all legal disputes 
related to individualized education programs, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to announce the 
introduction, along with my colleague Senator Miller, of the bipartisan 
Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002. During the 107th Congress, we 
have been successful in legislating sweeping reforms in education with 
the passage last year of the No Child Left Behind Act. We also hope to 
complete reauthorization of another important Federal education 
initiative, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we consider this legislation, our 
greatest responsibility is to improve the quality of the education that 
students with special needs receive.
  One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in 
direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden 
imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable 
time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing 
frustration for the special education teachers working on the

[[Page S5854]]

frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best 
quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork 
Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that 
will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the 
children they instruct.
  This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct 
the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of 
Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies, 
would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent 
within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be 
encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General 
Accounting Office GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of 
the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State 
and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been 
conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the 
1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork 
burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the 
U.S. Department of Education, and the states and local districts can 
take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this 
legislation.
  Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to 
Individual Education Programs IEPs to better empower parents and 
schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather 
than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this 
legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct 
research to determine best practices for successful mediation, 
including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to 
reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher 
resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation 
training support services to support state and local efforts. The 
resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated 
through Part D of IDEA.

  The Council for Exceptional Children, CEC, states, ``No barrier is so 
irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from 
teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked 
third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The 
CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the 
profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics 
concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend 
completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education 
teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their 
job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on 
paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average 
of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education 
teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing 
paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized 
education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83 
percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to 
one and a half days each week in IEP-related meetings.
  There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork. 
The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set 
forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to 
complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the 
National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result 
in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a 
negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second, 
there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding 
federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by 
the states and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education 
compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five 
pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is 
litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for 
due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials 
often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove 
that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) was provided to the 
special education student.
  A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal 
disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation 
as an alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings. 
According to the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in 
Special Education, CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for 
children, parents, and teachers and allows families to maintain a 
positive relationship with teachers and service providers. Parents have 
the benefit of working together with educators and service providers as 
partners instead of as adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached 
as a result of mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing 
due process and legal options.
  Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative 
for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation 
sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, states are required 
to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot 
of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation 
Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it 
pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that 
attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000. 
In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays 
mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is 
apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well. 
According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation 
session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental 
request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date.
  Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due 
process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80 
percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of 
voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both 
parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute 
Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict 
occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84 
percent of those who chose mediation would use it again.
  The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious 
problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated 
special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in 
order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn. 
It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to 
give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing 
their lives, and less time wading through inanimate stacks of paper. I 
would invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation 
to help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for 
all students so that no child is left behind.
                                  ____

      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Snowe, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Hagel, Mr. 
        Conrad, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 2654. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income loan payments received under the National Health 
Service Corps Loan Repayment Program established in the Public Health 
Service Act; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas 
to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made 
through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am 
pleased that Senators Cleland, Snowe, Johnson, Gordon Smith, Landrieu, 
Hagel, Conrad, Roberts, Durbin, Torricelli, Rockefeller, and Wyden are 
also cosponsoring this important legislation.
  There have been many developments in the area of health care in the 
last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical 
research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new 
technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In 
fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new 
scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great

[[Page S5855]]

strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the 
access to health care for so many.
  The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans 
without health insurance coverage, 9.2 million of whom are children. In 
Washington, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacks 
health insurance. Many of the 42.6 million uninsured Americans are 
lower-income workers who do not have employer-sponsored coverage for 
themselves, but earn too much to be eligible for public programs like 
Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost 
importance, we know that at the very least, health insurance means the 
difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between 
life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the 
insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six 
times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care.
  But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. 
Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing 
an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is 
increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work 
with underserved communities, especially in rural areas. In addition to 
economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues 
involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, 
and trained in an urban setting.
  The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator 
Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from 
Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in 
rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this 
program to fill that need.
  Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in 
rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt 
that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In 
fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of 
providers continued to provide services to underserved communities 
after their Corps obligation was fulfilled, 80 percent of these health 
care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally 
been placed.
  Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides 
scholarships, loan-repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to 
serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health 
care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the 
program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate 
detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out 
of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. 
And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income 
to the IRS, the loan-repayments and stipends are.

  By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax 
assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, 
which is to be used by the recipient offset his or her tax liability 
resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 
percent of the federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the 
loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these federal payments were not 
taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students 
could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed 
in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both 
urban and rural areas.
  This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the 
National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent 
to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not 
want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 
applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not 
fully fund the loan repayment program.
  The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service 
Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the 
Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby 
bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are 
excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have 
greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan 
repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in 
underserved areas.
  There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service 
Corps is a ``win-win'' situation. Corps scholarships help finance 
education for future primary care providers interested in serving the 
underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the 
need for primary health care is greatest.
  This bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including 
the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of 
Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, 
and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased 
that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. 
I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the 
Record after my statement.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join me in expanding 
this vitally important and imminently successful program.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act Endorsements

       American Academy of Nurse Practitioners.
       American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.
       American Academy of Physician Assistants.
       American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.
       American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
       American Association for Dental Research.
       American College of Nurse-Midwives.
       American College of Nurse Practitioners.
       American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians.
       American Counseling Association.
       American Dental Association.
       American Dental Education Association.
       American Medical Student Association.
       American Optometric Association.
       American Organization of Nurse Executives.
       American Osteopathic Association.
       American Psychological Association.
       American Student Dental Association.
       Association of Academic Health Centers.
       Association of American Medical Colleges.
       Association of Clinicians for the Underserved.
       Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry.
       National Association of Community Health Centers.
       National Association of Graduate-Professional Students.
       National Rural Health Association.
       Washington State Medical Association.

  Mr. THOMAS. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the National 
Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 with my colleague from 
Washington, Ms. Cantwell. Specifically, this legislation will exclude 
loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) 
program from taxable income. Enactment of the National Health Service 
Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the amount of federal 
dollars available so more students could participate in the NHSC 
program.
  Under current law, the NHSC provides scholarships, loan-repayments, 
and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in national designated 
underserved urban and rural communities. The tax law changes in 1986 
resulted in the IRS ruling that all NHSC payments were taxable. 
Congress eliminated the tax on the scholarship in 2001, but the loan-
repayments and stipends continue to be taxed.
  To assist loan repayment recipients with their tax burden, the NHSC 
loan program includes an additional payment equal to 39 percent of the 
loan repayment amount so the loan repayment recipient can pay his or 
her taxes. Close to 40 percent of the NHSC Federal loan repayment 
budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income.'' The current 
situation should not be allowed to continue. Given the fiscal 
restraints we are facing, we must ensure that federal dollars are spent 
efficiently and effectively. It is obvious that today's NHSC loan 
repayment structure does not meet that goal. Our legislation resolves 
this issue.
  For over 30 years, the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) program 
has literally been a lifeline for many underserved communities across 
the country that otherwise would not have a health care provider. I 
know this program is critically important to my

[[Page S5856]]

state of Wyoming and to many other rural states that has difficulties 
recruiting and retaining primary health care clinicians.
  There are 2,800 Health Professional Shortage Areas, 740 Mental Health 
Shortage Areas and 1,200 Dental Health Shortage Areas now designated 
across the country. However, the NHSC program is meeting less than 13 
percent of the current need for primary care providers and less than 
six percent of need for mental health and dental services. The National 
Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the 
number of students in the program and allow more provides to be placed 
in these shortage areas.
  The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 is 
crucial to the future well being of many of our rural communities. I 
strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______