[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1423-1425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               EDUCATION

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, while legislation is not presently pending 
before the Senate, I understand that the leadership intends to soon 
call up an education proposal by Senator Coverdell, a tax cut that 
would allow families with an adjusted gross income of up to $95,000 for 
single filers, $150,000 for joint filers, to make contributions to 
individual retirement accounts up to $2,000 per child for K-12 
education expenses, including private school tuition, during the tax 
periods from the year 2000 to 2003. As I understand it, the revenue 
loss of this proposal is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.3 billion. 
I believe I am correct in so characterizing this proposal.
  First of all, I am somewhat surprised this legislation is coming up 
at this time. We are about a week away from the education committee of 
the Senate reporting out, I hope, a bill on elementary and secondary 
education. We are required under law to authorize the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act once every 5 years. That bell actually tolled 
last year but obviously we are still in this Congress, so we have an 
obligation to report to our colleagues our thoughts and solutions on 
the needs in elementary and secondary education in this country. The 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, of which I am a 
member, has held something in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 hearings 
over the last year and a half on this legislation, and I have listened 
to literally dozens and dozens of witnesses about how we can do a 
better job improving the quality of education in this country.
  I know in the last week or so, in surveys done by polling operations 
that are both of the Democratic persuasion and the Republican 
persuasion, they have indicated what most of us knew already, that 
education is the single most important issue the American public thinks 
we need to address. I think the numbers were 38 percent of the American 
public listed education as the lead priority issue that Congress ought 
to deal with, on which the American people would like to see us focus 
more attention. Education placed higher than the public's concerns 
about Social Security and Medicare by some three points, and health 
care by seven points. Those were the top three responses: education, 
Social Security, and Medicare, and health care generally, with 
education surpassing those concerns with some 38 percent.
  It is appropriate this Congress deal with education. What I am 
stunned by is that 1 week away from action by the major committee 
charged with the responsibility of dealing with education issues, the 
leadership has decided to bring up the Coverdell bill rather than 
waiting for the committee product to come out, after having waited now 
a year and a half for it. So on one level

[[Page 1424]]

I am disappointed that the leadership has decided to bring up this 
legislation prior to the education committee's markup of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act.
  Further, I take particular issue with the legislation that will soon 
be before us, the Coverdell proposal. I have a lot of respect for my 
colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, but he and I have 
significant disagreements on some issues, and on this one particularly. 
Let me inform my colleagues what this bill would do. Obviously, a tax 
break designed to help defray the costs of education for grades K-12 
sounds very good. It is a lot of money, $1.3 billion. But let me 
explain specifically how this legislation would actually impact 
people's tax obligations.
  According to a Joint Tax Committee report, which is an objective 
committee that is not supposed to take partisan issue with any 
particular bill, the average benefit per child in public schools would 
be $3 in the year 2001, $4.50 in the year 2002, and $6 in the year 
2003, reaching a high mark of $7 in the year 2004, or a total of $20.50 
over 4 years. That is $1.3 billion in lost tax revenues to provide the 
average taxpayer with $20.50 in tax relief. That is going to be the 
answer to how we improve public education in this country, this 
legislation purports.
  No one is going to suggest that this Congress has a perfect record on 
tax cut proposals, but I noticed recently in a national survey that 
only some 13 percent of the American public thought at this juncture a 
tax cut was necessary, that they would rather see us spend the surplus 
we are accumulating, the non-Social Security surplus, on Social 
Security, Medicare, and educational needs in this country. While people 
certainly like the idea of a tax cut, they like better the idea we are 
reducing our national debt. Shouldn't we be working to eliminate the 
approximately $220 billion in interest payments we pay each year on the 
national debt? What greater gift could this generation give to future 
generations than ensuring their National Government would be free of 
debt?
  Almost without exception, Americans would rather we reduce our 
national debt than receive $20.50 over 4 years for an educational tax 
benefit proposal that is not going to do much at all. If your child is 
enrolled in a private school, $20.50 will provide very little 
assistance. The decision of whether or not to take $1.3 billion of 
taxpayer's money and give people, on average, $20.50 as opposed to 
paying down the national debt or dealing with Medicare or dealing with 
broader educational needs, I think is an easy one. I don't think we 
need much persuasion--I hope--when these clear choices are before us.
  Certainly with $20.50 we are not going to get smaller class sizes, 
which most Americans think is important. Certainly we are not going to 
get better qualified teachers, which most Americans think is important. 
This legislation is not going to modernize crowded, old, and unsafe 
school facilities. It is not going to wire these schools so students 
have the advantage of the Internet and modern technology to better 
prepare them for their futures. It is certainly not going to help 
school districts cope with the costs of special education.
  There is an issue, however, that we do have the opportunity to do 
something about. If you want to take $1.3 billion and do something, and 
if paying down the national debt doesn't impress you, why not do 
something about special education costs? Why not take the $1.3 billion 
and apply that towards the Federal Government's commitment to local 
communities to help them meet their special education costs? Our 
respective States know well the complaints of our mayors and our county 
executives, that the cost of special education is rising all of the 
time. They also know the Federal Government made a commitment years ago 
pledging 30 to 40 percent of the cost of special education services.
  The Federal Government has never gotten above 13 percent of that 
commitment. If we want to do something meaningful for our communities, 
be they Colorado or Connecticut, if we want to spend this money on 
education, why not return the money to our States and allow them to 
meet the costs of special education? I promise you, there is not a 
mayor in this country, there is not a county executive in this country, 
there is not a school board in this country that would not applaud a 
decision by this body to provide some meaningful help on defraying the 
costs of special education. Believe me, if the choice is one between 
helping our local school districts or giving $20.50 over 4 years as a 
tax break to the people in their communities, they will take the 
special education option every time.
  I intend to offer an amendment to the underlying bill. At the first 
opportunity, I am going to offer an amendment that will take the $1.3 
billion and apply it to special education and let us do something 
meaningful in our respective States.
  Let me share with my colleagues the background on the special ed 
proposal.
  In my view, it is a waste of fiscal resources to be spending $1.3 
billion on this minor tax break, $20.50 over 4 years. One cannot buy 
hamburgers for a family of four at MacDonald's or Burger King with this 
amount of money. As I said earlier, however, these funds can make a 
difference in the area of special education. Let's take a look at how 
my proposal will make a difference.
  It will strengthen public schools by assisting them with the very 
high cost of special education. Upon enactment of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act in 1975, the Federal Government committed to 
State and local school districts that it would contribute 40 percent of 
the funds needed to provide special education services. Twenty-five 
years ago we made that commitment.
  Presently, the Federal contribution to special education is 12.7 
percent of the total special education costs. The Federal Government 
today would need to boost its IDEA funding an estimated $15.7 billion 
to live up to its original commitment. I am not suggesting $1.3 billion 
is going to get us to the 40 percent level, but it would be a major 
step in the right direction.
  The amendment that I plan to offer will redirect the $1.3 billion 
over 4 years that the Coverdell amendment applies, to aid State and 
local school districts in providing the critically important special 
education services that children with disabilities deserve. This 
proposal will truly do something for our communities, I suggest to my 
good friend, the Presiding Officer, in his wonderful State of Colorado 
and my State of Connecticut. This will truly make a difference. This 
proposal will strengthen these local school districts.
  I believe it is better for us to take this money, which the Coverdell 
legislation will take out of general revenues of the Treasury, and 
apply it to something for which our constituents and our communities 
will be grateful. Mr. President, $20.50 does not put a dent in our real 
education needs.
  I emphasize, again--and this is the first point I made--I am somewhat 
disappointed we are bringing up this proposal just days away from the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reporting out its 
bill on the elementary and secondary education proposals, as we have 
done historically over the years. But 5 or 6 days before the committee 
acts, after all the hearings the committee has held, all the time that 
has been invested by Republicans and Democrats on the committee who 
care about education and have listened to people from across the 
country offering their suggestions on how we can best improve the 
quality of education, it is a great pity, in my view, that we are going 
to disregard that exercise and come right to the floor with a tax-cut 
proposal that does little or nothing to improve the quality of 
education in our country.
  At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment that will require 
this $1.3 billion to go directly to our school districts, to our 
communities, to provide the financial support they can use, given the 
high cost of special education in communities all across the country, 
and help us get closer to fulfilling that commitment we made 25 years 
ago of meeting 40 percent of the costs of special education.

[[Page 1425]]

  I have offered this amendment in the past. This amendment has had 
bipartisan support. When I offered this amendment in 1994, the majority 
leader, Senator Lott, supported the amendment, as did Senators Gorton 
and Jeffords. However, eventually we came short of the majority 
necessary to adopt the amendment.
  In fact, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, to his 
great credit, when he and I served together on the Budget Committee 
years ago supported a similar amendment to the one I'm proposing today. 
When I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee that would require 
that over a number of years we increase the federal contribution to 
special education to 40-percent, it unfortunately fell on a tie vote.
  As some people are aware, the Federal Government commits only 7 cents 
on the dollar to fund elementary and secondary education services in 
this country. Seven cents on the dollar is what we do; 93 cents on the 
dollar comes from the States and local governments, and most funding 
for education comes from local taxation.
  My proposal offers a way for the Federal Government to provide some 
real tax relief at the local level for special education costs that 
these communities must raise in order to meet their obligations under 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  I am hopeful that, while this amendment has not been adopted in the 
past, given the choice between a $20.50 tax break over 4 years and 
taking $1.3 billion and sending it back to our communities to help them 
meet their special education costs, this amendment may prevail this 
time. Our children with disabilities and our communities deserve our 
support. I then hope we can move on to the real business of continuing 
our work on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

                          ____________________