[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5715-5716]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    FEDERAL COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed the FY 2001 
Budget Resolution. I would be remiss if, upon reflection, I did not 
take this opportunity to talk about the federal commitment to education 
in my state of Utah.
  In my state of Utah, education consistently ranks as one of the 
highest priorities for Utahns. During this year's session of the Utah 
legislature, Utah reaffirmed its commitment to improving education, 
reducing class size and paying dedicated teachers a salary commensurate 
with their efforts and qualifications.
  Utah takes its commitment to education funding very seriously. During 
the 1995-96 school year, education expenditures in Utah amounted to $92 
per $1000 of personal income. The national average was $62 per $1000. 
In other words, Mr. President, Utah's education expenditure relative to 
total personal income is nearly 50 percent more than the national 
average. It is the third highest in the nation.
  In education expenditures as a percent of total direct state and 
local government expenditures, Utah ranks 2nd in the nation. Utah's 
expenditure for education was 41.5 percent of the total amount spent 
for government. The national average is 33.5 percent.
  Mr. President, no one can tell me that Utahns are not serious about 
funding education. And these efforts have garnered results. Utah's 
scores on ACT tests are equal to or better than the national average in 
English, math, reading and science. Utah ranks 1st in the nation in 
Advanced Placement tests taken and passed.
  Still, even with these efforts, Utah remains 1st the nation in terms 
of class size and last in per-pupil expenditure. This is due to Utah's 
unique demographic. Utah families are, on average, larger than any 
other state. Utah has the highest birth rate in the nation.
  While it is true that these factors contribute to the allocation of 
federal education funds, most notably the Title I funds, the Clinton 
administration has done very little to help Utah. Indeed, many of the 
proposals in the administration budget would be detrimental to 
education efforts underway in Utah.
  Among other things, this administration has consistently cut funding 
for Impact Aid. Impact Aid is a vital program for Utah because it helps 
make up for the lost property tax revenue in school districts where 
there is a significant federal presence. Since half of our state is 
federally owned or controlled, that means our schools would suffer even 
greater financial difficulties without Impact Aid. I appreciate that 
this Budget Resolution rejects the 15 percent cut requested by the 
Clinton administration.
  Indeed, in addition to support for Impact Aid, there is much to 
applaud in this Budget Resolution relative to education. It assumes an 
increase of more than $600 million over the administration's request. 
Over $11 billion will be dedicated to funding the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. This will greatly assist Utah fund the 
education of students with special needs.
  Moreover, because the federal government will be contributing more 
toward the costs of special education, fulfilling more of its promise 
to fund 40 percent of the cost for educating students with 
disabilities, the state will be able to use its own resources to 
address state and local priorities such as lowering class size, improve 
facilities, increasing teachers' pay, upgrading instructional equipment 
and textbooks, or offering enrichment programs.
  Finally, this administration has never recommended funding for the 
Education Finance Incentive Grant program which, instead of a per-pupil 
expenditure as a proxy for a state's commitment to education, uses a 
combination of a state's effort to fund education and a state's 
willingness to more equitably distribute resources among a state's 
economically diverse school districts. As I have noted, Utah allocates 
a significant amount of state revenue to education, demonstrating our 
state's effort. Utah also has in place an ``equity program'' for 
assisting schools with smaller tax bases. Nationally, we ought to be 
encouraging states to make such effort, and we ought to be rewarding 
states that do. This is an important program that deserves a consistent 
funding stream, and I will be addressing this issue in the context of 
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  In the area of higher education, this Budget Resolution rejects the 
administration's proposal to require guaranty agencies, which finance 
guaranteed student loans (GSLs), to pay accelerated and increased funds 
from their federal reserves. This would be especially devastating to 
Utah's Higher Education Assistance Authority (UHEAA). Utah has one of 
the lowest average incomes in the nation; and, therefore, Utah students 
who are not reliant on their parents for financial assistance rely 
instead on assistance from UHEAA.
  During past assessments, because UHEAA had maintained one of highest

[[Page 5716]]

guarantee program reserves ratios, Utah had to return one of the 
highest percentages of current reserves to the federal government. 
Under the administration's proposal, these cuts would have been 
deepened, and I am grateful to the Budget committee for rejecting them.
  In closing, I would like to commend the tireless hard work of the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. His dedication to 
sound fiscal policy and appropriate spending priorities are laudable. I 
also thank the Senate leadership for their efforts on moving this 
process along. I look forward to the enactment of this Budget 
Resolution. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________