Congressional Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2008
Floor Speech
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 -- (Senate - March 22, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is being cosponsored by Senator Mikulski of Maryland. This amendment is about keeping the promises the Federal Government made to the people of our country 32 years ago. It is about keeping our word to the children of this country, especially those with disabilities. It is about keeping our word to the property tax payers of this country, whose property taxes in Vermont and throughout this country are going up and up and up.
When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Act in 1975, under the leadership of Senator TOM HARKIN, that legislation said the Government would provide up to 40 percent--40 percent--of the national average per-pupil expenditure for special education. Unfortunately, however, the Federal Government has not kept its word. Today, its contribution stands at barely 17 percent. The promise was 40 percent; the reality is 17 percent.
In other words, the Federal Government passed legislation doing the right thing with regard to our children in 1975, but it has not followed through in terms of the kind of funding it promised, and school districts all over this country and children all over this country are suffering from that lack of action.
When Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle talk about unfunded mandates, the inadequate funding for special education is the poster child of that problem. We told school districts we would fund special education at 40 percent, and we are funding it at 17 percent. That is wrong. That speaks poorly of Congress.
In Vermont, and I suspect all over this country, school districts are demanding we rectify that problem, that we keep the promise made so many years ago.
When the Federal Government does not keep its word, school districts in my State, school districts in the Presiding Officer's State and throughout this country are forced to do one of two things: either they do not provide the quality of special education care the special needs kids require--and that is wrong--or else their limited budgets require them to cut back on other educational programs in order to fund the expensive needs of special eduction kids. So what ends up happening is we take money from second languages, we take money from athletics, we take money from arts, and we put it into special education, and all of the children suffer as a result of that.
The third option facing school districts--which certainly is taking place in Vermont, and I expect all over this country--is that school districts are forced to ask for higher and higher property taxes. Those property taxes are becoming so high in areas of this country that people who have lived in their homes for their entire lives are now being forced to leave their homes.
The property tax is a regressive form of taxation. It hits working families very hard and unfairly. It hits senior citizens unfairly. More and more communities around this country are forced to raise property taxes, which is putting an increased burden on middle-class families.
The amendment I am offering, which is cosponsored by Senator Mikulski of Maryland, is a simple and straightforward amendment. At a time when the wealthiest people in this country are becoming wealthier, at a time when the wealthiest 1 percent have not had it so good since the 1920s, at a time when property taxes on the middle class are soaring all over this country, at a time when school districts are being forced to spend more and more on special education, this amendment increases funding for special education by $44.2 billion over the next 5 years.
It finally begins to do what this Congress should have done years and years ago. It adequately funds special education. It begins to move away from the unfunded mandate that so many communities around our country are suffering from.
This amendment raises the $44.2 billion by rescinding the 2001 income tax cuts that were given to millionaires. In other words, it would restore the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent on taxable income exceeding $1 million per year.
This amendment would only apply to millionaires. Those are the only people who would be asked to pay more because we would be rescinding the 2001 income tax reductions that President Bush and the Congress gave to them.
While we ask the wealthiest people in this country to pay a little bit more, what we would be doing is lowering property taxes for the middle class all over this country and improving the quality of education that our children receive.
By using this revenue for special education, as this amendment does, the Federal Government could begin to live up to its 40 percent commitment in fiscal year 2009. Not only would we be providing a much needed boost for children with disabilities, we would also be providing property tax relief to so many families throughout this country who are in desperate need of that relief.
The bottom line of this amendment is pretty simple. It has a lot to do about which side we consider ourselves to be on. We hear a lot of rhetoric in the Congress about the importance of education. The Presiding Officer understands the importance of education. I understand the importance of education. I suspect every Member of the Senate understands the need to improve the quality of education in this country. This is an amendment about improving education for all of our children.
We hear a lot of discussion in the Senate and the Congress about the growth of special education needs among our kids--whether it is autism, ADD, or other disorders.
This is an amendment which addresses in a very serious way the needs of special education.
We hear a lot about unfunded mandates and the burden of higher and higher property taxes on working families all over this country. This amendment, if passed, takes a giant step forward in rectifying this unfunded mandate and lowering property taxes. Mostly, though, this amendment is about Congress keeping its word, keeping the promise it made so many years ago. We made a promise to school districts all over this country that if they mainstreamed kids into public schools, Congress would provide 40 percent of the cost. We have not kept that promise. We have given hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, but we have not reached out to school districts to help them with the cost of special education, the result being higher and higher property taxes. The time is long overdue for the Congress to keep the promises it made with regard to special education, and this amendment does just that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I always enjoy dialoguing with my neighbor from New Hampshire. Let me make just a few points. I think he understands, because if my son who lives in Claremont, NH, is accurate, what he is telling me is what Vermonters are telling me--that property taxes in New Hampshire and in Vermont and all over this country are soaring.
My friend from New Hampshire says the President and Congress are addressing special education needs, more money is going into it. But the reality is that for the last 3 years, the percentage of Federal contributions for special education has gone down. They were at a high of 18 percent. They are moving downward. They are now at 17 percent.
My friend can talk about raising taxes, and let me concede that he is right. We are raising taxes on the upper three-tenths of 1 percent because 99.7 percent of the American people would not see any increase in Federal taxes as a result of this amendment. Tens of millions of American families would see a reduction in their property taxes.
I believe that at a time when the wealthiest 1 percent have never had it so good, when we are seeing that, according to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans--400--increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion, it is time for this Congress to start worrying about middle-class families that can't afford higher and higher property taxes, about kids with disabilities who deserve quality education, about all of our children who deserve an education, and not worry about the upper three-tenths of 1 percent.
If my friend from New Hampshire says I am raising taxes on the upper three-tenths of 1 percent, people who are millionaires and billionaires, I concede that point. I am. That is the right thing to do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, in 1975, Congress made a promise to provide 40 percent of the funding for special education. Congress has not kept that promise on that unfunded mandate. Today, we are providing a little over 17 percent of the costs of special education, and that percentage has gone down over the last 3 years. The result is higher and higher property taxes for the middle-class and working families of our country.
This amendment is very simple. It rescinds the 2001 personal income tax reduction that was given to people with at least $1 million in income--the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the population--and puts the $44 billion raised over 5 years into special education.
Madam President, 99.7 percent of Americans would see no increase in their Federal taxes from this amendment. But it would lower property taxes for millions of middle-class and working families, improve the quality of education and, most importantly, keep the promise made to school districts all over this country.
Source