[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11503-S11511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 2646, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2646) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to allow tax-free expenditures from education individual 
     retirement accounts for elementary and secondary school 
     expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of 
     contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 10:30 a.m. will be divided 
between the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] and the minority 
leader, or his designee.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of H.R. 2646, the A-
plus education bill. What has become known as the A-plus account, or 
education savings account, is a unique instrument that is being 
designed to help American families across the land to deal with 
education deficiencies, particularly in grades K-12, kindergarten 
through high school, although the account may be kept intact and used 
for higher education if that is the desire of the family.
  Simply put, a family could save up to $2,500 every year from the 
child's birth in a savings account much like an IRA that most Americans 
have come to understand, a similar instrument. These are after-tax 
dollars. The interest that would build up each succeeding year would 
not be taxed if the proceeds of the account are used for virtually any 
educational purpose. So it becomes a tool that empowers parents to deal 
with particular or peculiar deficiencies of the child.
  As a result, my own view is that the value of these dollars could be 
as much as three to five times a typical public dollar being spent 
because the dollar is being directed at the unique deficiency.
  Let's say, for example, the child had a learning disability, or 
dyslexia, that required special attention. The dollars could be put 
right on that problem. Or perhaps the child had a math deficiency and 
it required a tutor, or there was a transportation problem to deal with 
an after-school program, or a learning disability of some form. All of 
these particular problems, broad dollars cannot necessarily address, 
but these savings accounts can. They can go right to the deficiency.
  A unique feature of the savings account is that the account can 
receive contributions from sponsors. When you do that, the imagination 
begins to work at the different kinds of things that could happen to 
help build this account up for this child. A corporation, an employer, 
could be a contributor to

[[Page S11504]]

these accounts. You can envision matching circumstances, where an 
employer would say I'll put so much in your children's account if 
you'll match it. You can imagine a church becoming involved in these 
types of accounts. I can see a community--recently in Atlanta we lost a 
law enforcement officer, and people are often trying to find a way to 
help the remaining family. I can see communities stepping forward in 
this case and establishing an account for the surviving children. So 
community, employers, extended family, brothers, uncles, neighbors, 
grandparents--all of these individuals could become sponsors of these 
children's accounts.
  As a result, a large infusion of enrichment will occur to education 
in America, one of the largest in 10 years--billions of dollars. The 
Joint Committee on Taxation has advised us that 14 million families 
will make use of these accounts--14 million families. A quick 
estimation there shows you somewhere around 20 million-plus children, 
approaching half of children in America's schools, will be 
beneficiaries to some degree of these accounts.
  It baffles me that some in the professional system, the National 
Education Association, oppose this. They want to believe and others to 
think that--I think the line is that it only will help wealthy people 
and that it will only support religious schools. Both assertions are 
utterly false.
  I have been stunned by an organization of this character being so 
misleading about a matter of public policy. You would think that an 
organization associated with schooling and role modeling for young 
people could do a little better job of being candid and straightforward 
about their opposition. It has had some effect, because many people 
think the savings account is the equivalent of a voucher. A voucher--
which I support; they don't--but a voucher is the redistribution of 
public money. In other words, the money raised from the public for 
taxes, property taxes or the like, is given to the family and they can 
move it to any point they would like. That is a voucher. This is a 
savings account. This is not public money. This is private after-tax 
money. And we are not taxing the buildup.
  Under their definition of public money, I guess the capital gains tax 
reduction would be a voucher because we have left money in someone's 
checking account and they can use it some way they choose. But, in any 
event, the allegation is that it is for the wealthy and that it 
supports religious schools.
  Here are the facts. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, of 
the 14 million families that will use these accounts, 10.8 million of 
them will be in families whose children are in public schools; 70 
percent of the funds generated, this enrichment, this additional effort 
and energy coming behind our school system, private and voluntary, will 
go to support public schools--70 percent--and 30 percent to private 
schools.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 70 percent of all these 
funds will go to support children and families earning $75,000 or less. 
It is means tested. It is not for the wealthy. It has sponsors, so that 
we can help those who have a tough time organizing the accounts, and 
the principal beneficiary will be the public school system of America 
and the families in it.
  Mr. President, I yield at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, let me first congratulate my friend and 
colleague on the thoughtfulness of his remarks and the cogency of his 
arguments. If I will now speak in opposition, it is first and foremost 
a procedural opposition and jurisdictional one, having to do with bills 
sent from the House of Representatives and held at the desk and not 
referred to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate that.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. And also having to do with the season of the year.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate the general remarks.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in an op-ed article in the New York 
Times on Tuesday, Richard Leone, who is the president of the 20th 
Century Fund, an eminent New York City institution, remarked, ``Last 
week, the House of Representatives took time out from beating up on the 
Internal Revenue Service to approve a fresh tax loophole.''
  I have had occasion to comment that on July 31, when we voted 92 to 8 
to approve an 820-page addition to the Internal Revenue Code, the only 
copy of the bill in this Chamber was in the possession of our most 
distinguished tax counsel, Mr. Giordano.
  Somewhat furtively, Members would come up and ask if they could just 
check whether their provision was in the bill. We might have charged 
for that service. We did not, in the public spirit of the occasion. But 
it was no way to legislate taxation.
  In that spirit, I simply want to say that neither, at this time and 
in this manner, ought we to be approving a new provision providing for 
expansion of IRA's that would cost us $4 billion over 10 years. That is 
in addition to the $38 billion in new IRA's which we passed on July 31. 
There was an education IRA, and I am happy to say a Roth IRA. Our 
distinguished chairman is to have the satisfaction, I hope it is, of 
seeing in bank windows around the country, ``Roth IRA available for 
purchase,'' which people will be wise to do.
  The tax legislation for this session of the 105th Congress is 
concluded. We will resume next year. I hope we don't resume with too 
much energy. It is a fact that we impose upon the Internal Revenue 
Service, and upon the citizenry much more than the Internal Revenue 
Service, incredibly complex measures which defy assessment in so many 
cases. And we do it while calling for the repeal of the Internal 
Revenue Code and the abolition of the IRS. Well, I can understand the 
calls that issue from the House of Representatives to abolish the IRS, 
because increasingly its task is impossible. But on the other hand, 
there is something called the Nation and it does require revenues. Even 
if they are reduced to that elemental proposition of delivering the 
mail and defending the coasts, that does require revenues. The choices 
are for us many and we shouldn't complexify them to the point of plain 
bafflement.
  The President has said he will veto this bill. Our President, in a 
letter to our distinguished majority leader of July 29, thanked the 
majority leader and, by reference, the others of us in conference on 
the Tax Relief Act of 1997, for the bipartisan way in which we were 
putting that legislation together, but he did say he would strongly 
oppose the measure of the Senator from Georgia. So, accordingly, that 
was taken out in conference in order for the whole bill to be approved.
  I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 29, 1997.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: I want to again thank you for working in a 
     productive, bipartisan manner to develop this bipartisan 
     budget agreement. I feel particularly good about the strong 
     education package that is included in the tax bill. As you 
     know, in working out the final agreement, I strongly opposed 
     the Coverdell amendment. I would veto any tax package that 
     would undermine public education by providing tax benefits 
     for private and parochial school expenses.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair.
  One further point. After a very great deal of effort and not 
inconsiderable amount of pain, we have brought the Federal budget into 
balance. I stood here in 1993, or rather my good friend, now Ambassador 
to China, Mr. Sasser, as chairman of the Budget Committee, stood here 
and I stood there as chairman of the Finance Committee, and in a very 
close and dramatic moment, we got the required 51 votes to enact what I 
have since acknowledged to be the largest tax increase in history. But 
it broke the back of the expectation that we could never handle our 
finances, that interest rates had to be high, the inflation premium 
attendant on the probability that we would end up monetizing the debt 
because we couldn't pay for it. Monetizing is a term by which you 
inflate the currency and lower the cost of the debt.
  We did it, and the deficit has gone down. We have this most 
extraordinary, unprecedented, somewhat difficult-to-comprehend 
situation of full

[[Page S11505]]

employment, low inflation, low interest rates, high productivity. 
Fuller employment than we ever thought was compatible with the interest 
situation. We are in a new economic setting, and by March, I would 
think, the continued revenues to the Treasury would be such that the 
deficit will have disappeared.
  We have talked about the deficit, not always in the calmest tones, 
for a decade now. We finally balanced the budget, and what do we 
suddenly see? More and more proposals for cutting taxes through one 
form or another, losing revenue so we will get the deficit back again.
  Mr. President, the time is at hand, if I may say, to use the deficit 
to reduce the debt. We now spend almost as much money on interest 
payments as we do on defense. That is not a proportionate set of values 
of interests, of priorities. We ought to start reducing the debt. For 
every dollar of public debt that we reduce, we get $1 of private 
savings, private investment, which, in turn, will produce revenue, and 
on one hand, it will reduce costs of interest payments, and on the 
other hand, it will increase revenue. We are short of savings. I know 
the concern of the Senator from Georgia is savings, but at this moment, 
I would like to say we will take this up next year. This has not been 
referred to the Finance Committee. It is a House measure held at the 
desk in the last hours of the first session of the 105th Congress. I 
hope that we will put it off until next year when it will receive a 
goodly consideration. I can't say I know this to be Chairman Roth's 
intention, but I cannot doubt it is his intention, such as it is his 
manner in all these issues.
  But to say again, the measure before us would spend $4 billion over 
10 years to increase the contribution limit for education IRA's from 
$500 to $2,500 per year, provide for tax-free build-up of the earnings 
in such accounts, and tax-free withdrawals for an array of expenses 
relating to elementary and secondary education. The bill comes to this 
floor directly from the House; it has not been considered by the 
Finance Committee.
  With great respect to the sponsor of the bill, the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia, I do not believe the Senate should take up this 
legislation at this time. It was just 3 months ago that we passed the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which included a net tax cut of $95 
billion over 5 years and $275 billion over 10 years. At a cost of $38 
billion over 10 years, that act created the education IRA and the Roth 
IRA, and significantly expanded existing IRA's and the tax benefits of 
State-sponsored prepaid college tuition plans. And now, we are asked to 
expand those recent IRA changes even further.
  As well intentioned as this legislation is, surely there are many 
other priorities that should take precedence if we are serious about 
doing something for education. Priorities that have been thoroughly 
considered in the Finance Committee and by the full Senate. One such 
priority is the income exclusion for employer-provided educational 
assistance, which is Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code. It is 
probably the single-most successful tax incentive for education we 
have. In the tax bill that emerged from the Finance Committee in June, 
we made section 127 permanent and we applied it to graduate school. 
Unfortunately, when the tax bill came back from conference, this 
provision was limited to a 3-year extension only for undergraduates.
  Proponents of the pending legislation speak of a crisis in our 
elementary and secondary schools. There is no more compelling 
illustration of this than the state of the infrastructure of these 
schools. During the debate last summer on the tax and spending 
legislation, Senators Carol Moseley-Braun and Bob Graham brought the 
issue of crumbling schools to our attention, and they continue to be 
eager to address it. If we feel we must spend $4 billion, why not spend 
it to insure that schools have heat this winter?
  There are also tax policy concerns with this bill. First, complexity. 
Even as we hear ever louder calls to scrap the code, we have before us 
a bill that would create a maze of rules in attempting to define what 
constitutes a ``qualified elementary and secondary education expense.'' 
The bill states that qualified elementary and secondary school expenses 
include expenses for tuition, computers, and transportation required 
for enrollment or attendance at a K-12 institution, and for home 
schooling. There is no further definition. For example, would it be 
possible to withdraw money from these accounts to purchase the family 
car? I don't know, but you can't find the answer in the text of this 
bill.
  Under the bill, the ability to contribute funds for elementary and 
secondary education expenses is proposed to sunset after 2002. However, 
money contributed through 2002 could still be used for such expenses. 
It will be up to the taxpayer to track--and the IRS to examine--when 
funds were contributed, and whether they can be used for only 
elementary and secondary education, only higher education, or both.
  The administration estimates that 70 percent of the benefits of the 
bill go to the top 20 percent of income earners, taxpayers with annual 
incomes above $93,000. Tax benefits to taxpayers below that level are 
estimated to be nominal. If the proponents are truly concerned about 
the middle class, the tax benefits should be targeted there. In order 
to accomplish this, the income limits that apply to this bill would 
have to be lowered, and the ability to circumvent those limits would 
have to be prevented.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the good will of the sponsors of this 
legislation, which we will be happy to consider in the Finance 
Committee in the next season. But please let us not take up a tax bill, 
of all things, in the final days of this session. This is no time for 
this tax bill or any other tax bill. But if our friends in the majority 
insist on going forward, I believe they will find that Senators on this 
side--and doubtless on their side, too--will be ready with amendments 
by the dozens.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I thank the Chair for his courtesy, and I thank my friend.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his generous 
remarks addressed toward me at the initial opening of his statement. I 
appreciate that very much.
  I now yield up to 4 minutes to my good colleague from Connecticut. I 
want to just say that he, Senator Lieberman, has been at the forefront 
of education reform for more years than I. He is very dedicated to 
these proposals, and his support of this measure has been personally 
and publicly appreciated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and thank my friend and colleague 
from Georgia for his very kind comments. May I say, with his leadership 
on this issue, he has come right to the forefront of the national 
movement for education reform.
  Let me say first, briefly, how grateful I am, and I know the Senate 
across party lines, for the bipartisan leadership for the agreement 
that was achieved yesterday on scheduling the consideration by the 
Senate of campaign finance reform, which is important in its own right 
because of the significance of that effort, but also important because 
it frees us now to approach on the merits issues such as this.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this Education Savings Act for Public 
and Private Schools. It is a bipartisan cosponsorship, as will be clear 
from those who speak on behalf of it.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that of all the challenges that we have 
before us as we try to make this great country of ours even greater and 
spread the opportunities beyond those who have them best now, the most 
important place we can invest is in education, the education of our 
children.
  As we look at the education system in our country, I think we can say 
with some pride that the system of higher education is really doing 
quite well, but that it is the elementary and secondary schools, in 
making sure that our children get a good start on the road to education 
and self-sufficiency, that really need help.
  There are a lot of good things happening in our public and private 
and faith-based schools, but too many of our kids are still being 
educated in schools that are either in terrible shape physically, 
schools in which

[[Page S11506]]

their personal security is threatened by crime in the schools, or 
schools in which there is not adequate teaching and innovation going 
on.
  This measure is a classic attempt to create a partnership between the 
Government and families and businesses to help people better educate 
their children at the elementary and secondary level. It is a tax 
incentive, a small one. It is like dropping that pebble into the lake, 
and it is going to create ripples out for individual children and for 
our society that I think will be dramatic.
  I want to make just a few points.
  This recommendation of these educational savings accounts builds 
exactly on the higher education savings accounts that we adopted just a 
few months ago with broad bipartisan support. In that case, you could 
put $500 in. The income would be tax free, particularly if you took it 
out for years in higher education. It had income limits in it for means 
testing, if you will.
  This proposal of ours takes that idea and simply extends it to K-12 
education, with one big change--two, I suppose. One is that you can put 
in not just $500 but $2,500 in and others can invest in those 
accounts--grandparents, uncles, aunts, businesses. I wouldn't be 
surprised, if this is adopted, that labor unions will begin to 
negotiate with their employers to put matching contributions into the 
savings accounts for their kids.
  The point I want to make is this. A lot of anxiety and opposition has 
been expressed about this proposal. It is the same proposal that most 
of us voted for enthusiastically just a few months ago for higher 
education. So why is it so frightening now and it was so much accepted 
before? Why was it middle-class-tax relief then and it is now some sort 
of giveaway to wealthy people?

  I think if you focus on the merits of this, understand what 
independent analysis has told us that 70 percent of those who will 
benefit from this will be sending their kids to public school, that it 
can be used not just for tuition payments but for a broad array of 
support services--transportation, home schooling, purchasing a 
computer, et cetera.
  This is the kind of program that dreams are made of, that dreams are 
realized from. Parents who are working hard trying to find a better way 
for their children will be able to put a little money in these accounts 
or have some relatives put some money in, or convince the employer to 
put some money in and make it easier for them to take their children 
and put them in the schools where they want them, public or private or 
faith-based, or give the kids the support they need to get the better 
education.
  I think this is a good proposal whose time has come, and I am proud 
to be a cosponsor. I thank Senator Coverdell for his leadership on 
this, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of 
the Senator from Connecticut. He has made excellent points. This has 
already been passed by 59 votes in the Senate. It has been passed by 
the House. It is an extension of a proposal that both bodies 
overwhelmingly passed. I am fearful that we are in the midst of a 
filibuster attempt by special interests to block it, but we are going 
to stay at it, filibuster or not.
  I now yield up to 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for up 
to 4 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding. And I compliment him 
on his leadership, particularly on educational issues.
  Today, I am here to encourage my colleagues to support legislation 
which will open doors of educational opportunities to the parents and 
children throughout our Nation. Education savings accounts are a 
sensible step toward solving our education crisis in America by 
allowing families to use their own money--to use their own money--to 
pay for their child's education needs.
  This bill would empower parents with financial tools to provide all 
the needs they recognize in their children, needs that teachers or 
administrators cannot be trusted to address in the same way that a 
parent can.
  These accounts would provide families the ability to save for extra 
fees that they might incur, have to deal with, when they are sending 
their children to public schools, fees that may be necessary to pay for 
computers or maybe they want to go down and buy their own computer to 
help with their child's education, maybe some tutoring needs within the 
family, maybe they need to prepare for the SAT.
  Transportation costs could also be an educational need, particularly 
in rural areas, or maybe special circumstances that would allow a 
family to consider some private alternatives as opposed to public 
education.
  Handicapped children, for example, I think could really benefit from 
this because they do have special needs. This encourages the family of 
the handicapped to meet those special needs and to pay the costs that 
they may incur and still send them to a public school.
  This kind of tax relief is especially important for parents who are 
working two jobs with no extra time to help with homework or those who 
do not feel adequate in their own knowledge to tutor their children.
  As parents, I know that my wife and I were the best judges of our 
children's needs, and I am proud of the way they have developed. As all 
parents realize, I knew that I was in the best position to address 
their needs. I would have welcomed an opportunity to accrue tax-free 
interest to help pay for more opportunities in the education of my 
children. Far too many parents find that their hopes to provide the 
best education for their children are crushed as they realize the costs 
involved in accomplishing this task.
  Contrary to popular myth, 75 percent of the children who would 
benefit from this bill are public school students. The new estimates 
released by the Joint Tax Committee disprove the claim that public 
school revenues would be reduced by what is referred to as the A-plus 
accounts.
  The Joint Tax Committee estimates that by the year 2000, 14 million 
students would be able to benefit from this bill with 90 percent of 
those families earning between $15,000 and $100,000 a year.
  Mr. President, this is an important piece of legislation. It empowers 
families, and it empowers them to control the education of their family 
and meet their special needs. So I am absolutely thrilled with the 
leadership that the Senator from Georgia is showing in this regard. If 
my time is running out, I yield the remainder of my time back to the 
Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the respected historian and biographer, 
David McCullough, recently reminded us of the importance of education. 
Quoting John Adams, Professor McCullough wrote: ``Laws for the . . . 
education of youth are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane 
and generous mind no expense for this purpose would be thought 
extravagant.''
  Today we consider a law that will go a long way toward helping 
parents provide educational opportunities for their children--a law 
that will benefit students, whether they attend public schools or 
private.
  This bill, which is sponsored by our distinguished colleague Senator 
Coverdell, and which has broad bipartisan support, expands the 
education savings IRA. It allows families to save up to $2,500 a year, 
and to use this money to pay for educational expenses for their 
children attending school, from kindergarten to 12th grade.
  This, as John Adams would say, is a wise bill. It is one that will go 
a long way toward helping our families meet the rising costs associated 
with schooling. It will go a long way toward helping our children 
receive quality educations. And it will pay dividends to America, 
itself, as these children--better educated and more prepared--become 
the parents, educators, scientists, businessmen, and businesswomen of 
tomorrow.
  Not too long ago, the Finance Committee held hearings to look into 
the rising costs associated with education, and the pressure those 
costs place on parents and families. What we found was rather alarming. 
Today, parents are under an enormous burden when it comes to paying for 
education. And the costs continue to rise.

[[Page S11507]]

  We designed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to help parents and 
students offset some of these costs. For example:
  We created an education savings IRA to allow parents to save for 
higher education.
  We expanded the tax-deferred treatment of State-sponsored prepaid 
tuition plans.
  We restored the tax deduction on student loan interest.
  And, we extended the tax-free treatment of employer-provided 
educational assistance.
  Each of these measures will go a long way toward helping our students 
and their families handle the burden associated with education. 
Personally, I would have liked to see stronger measures in each of 
these areas. The Senate version of the Taxpayer Relief Act actually 
contained stronger provisions, and I introduced them as a separate bill 
the very day that we passed the Taxpayer Relief Act.
  The legislation we're considering today--which Senator Coverdell has 
introduced in the Senate--is in keeping with the spirit and emphasis of 
our efforts. It expands the education savings IRA that we passed in the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. It allows the IRA to be used to help 
families finance school-related needs for their children beginning in 
their kindergarten years and covers them all the way through high 
school. It raises the yearly contribution amount from $500 to $2,500.

  It allows savings from the IRA to be used for both public and private 
schools. For example, money could be withdrawn to pay for tuition, fees 
and books for children attending private school. It could also be 
withdrawn to pay for computers, uniforms, instruments, books, supplies, 
and other educational needs for children in public schools. In 
addition, Mr. President, this expanded IRA can be used for children 
with special needs throughout their lives.
  This legislation does not engender a public versus private debate. It 
is fair and good for families and children who elect either form of 
education. It is focused on middle-income families--those who are most 
pinched by the rising costs of education. It provides these families 
with the tools they need to have the freedom to select whichever form 
of education they feel is best for their children.
  According to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the vast 
majority of withdrawn funds from these expanded IRAs will go for public 
school children. Over 10 million families with children in public 
schools will use these educational savings accounts, as opposed to a 
little over 2 million families with children in private schools. The 
expanded education savings IRA's are completely paid for, as revenue 
loss will be fully offset by repealing an abusive vacation and 
severance pay accrual technique.
  Again, Mr. President, this legislation has strong bipartisan support. 
It is good for families, good for children, and good for the future of 
America. It builds on the foundation we set with the Taxpayer Relief 
Act of 1997. It provides flexibility as well as opportunity, and it is 
a necessary step toward providing parents with the tools and resources 
they need to help their children prepare for the future.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the A plus Education 
Savings Accounts Act which will provide families--an estimated 14.3 
million families by 2002--with the opportunity to save for their 
children's education, an investment by parents for their children's 
future.
  Education savings accounts allow parents, grandparents and 
scholarship sponsors to contribute up to $2,500 a year per child for an 
account that will be used for a child's education. The interest accrued 
will be tax-free as long as the funds are used to further the best 
possible education for their children.
  The funds saved by parents must be used for educational purposes--and 
can include expenses for home computers, tutoring for children with 
special needs or tuition for a private school. The money will be used 
in the most efficient manner because it will be the parents who make 
the decision on how to use the money.
  These education savings accounts leave public resources in public 
schools and let parents use their own money to augment education for 
their most precious investment--their children.
  This is a common sense approach--an education reform that gives 
control back to parents, improving education for their children.
  We must encourage parental involvement in their child's education, 
and this is an excellent way to allow that involvement, making the 
education system more responsive to parents.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Finance 
Committee, I join Senator Moynihan in his objection to this legislation 
on procedural grounds. As a member of that committee, I can attest to 
the fact that we have had no hearings at all on this legislation. The 
issue has not come up in committee. In fact, as far as I know, there is 
no precedence for bringing a House-passed tax bill to the Senate floor 
without any committee consideration whatsoever, without a single 
hearing or markup, and then immediately subjecting that matter to a 
vote to close off debate.
  That is what this is about. If cloture is invoked, it would limit the 
ability of Senators, those on the Finance Committee and everybody else, 
for that matter, to offer amendments. Members of the Finance Committee, 
Members of this body have not had an opportunity to offer amendments, 
have not had an opportunity to debate this matter, and this vote 
effectively will shut off that debate.
  I have filed two amendments to this tax bill, both relating to the 
issue of school repair and construction. Our buildings, as many parents 
know, are literally falling down around our children. They certainly 
cannot learn in those kinds of environments.
  I know of other amendments that have been filed relating to a variety 
of issues touching on this legislation--all amendments relevant to the 
consideration of this tax bill--but, again, those Senators who have 
offered those amendments will not have the opportunity to offer their 
amendments if cloture is invoked.
  Mr. President, I think those reasons should be enough for every 
Member of this body to vote against cloture, because, if nothing else, 
this is supposed to be a deliberative body, and we are supposed to have 
the opportunity to talk about ideas, to really fully explore them, to 
talk about them in a public way so that the people who listen to these 
debates have a chance to know what it is that we are voting on. But 
this bill has not had that. In fact, what it sets up is another set of 
tax expenditures without any consideration of the implications or the 
impacts of that expenditure.
  To use the term ``tax expenditure''--for the average citizen, the 
words ``tax expenditure'' do not have a lot of resonance, do not have a 
lot of meaning.
  I want you to think about, for a moment, spending from two 
perspectives: Spending out of the front door and spending out of the 
backdoor.
  Front-door spending includes appropriations, and everybody can relate 
to those. You see it on a bill. Bills that we pass, they say: We are 
going to spend this much for that purpose or this much for that 
purpose. The appropriations spending, front-door spending, is obvious. 
It is apparent. The public can understand it. It is simple. Everybody 
knows what the deal is, whether it is spending for a bridge or 
somebody's boondoggle. Appropriations for front-door spending is 
apparent and obvious spending.
  This plan we are considering today goes in the other direction, of 
the nonobvious spending for what is called tax expenditures. We can 
debate tax expenditures for a while, but the point is, I call it 
backdoor spending because essentially what it is is it is spending that 
takes place when you carve out an exception for somebody who otherwise 
was paying taxes, where you say everybody has to pay taxes, but as to 
this little group here, taxes will not have to be paid. So that then 
means that everybody else who is left has to make up that little hole 
that is created. That is what we mean by loopholes. That is what we 
mean by tax expenditures. And this is such a tax expenditure. This is 
not only a tax expenditure, it is $4 billion tax expenditure.
  I would have thought at a minimum we would have had a chance to have

[[Page S11508]]

this up in committee and have had to have witnesses testify on it and 
to have at least amendments on this floor. None of that has been made 
available with regard to this bill.

  There are times, Mr. President, when tax expenditures really do make 
sense, where we take the position that it makes more sense to say, as 
to this universe of people, this little group should not have to pay 
taxes, this loophole serves a legitimate function and it is an 
efficient way to do or to effect whatever policy it is that we are 
trying to achieve. There are some times when it is efficient.
  So for a moment, for purposes of this debate, let us take a look at 
the efficiency of this tax expenditure, whether or not the taxpayers 
who are going to have to make up this $4 billion difference, whether or 
not they will get the bang for their buck, whether or not it makes 
sense for us to spend money through the back door in this way.
  The truth is that this plan will benefit only the wealthy. According 
to the Treasury Department, which has analyzed this proposed tax scheme 
and calculated what are called its distributional effects--that is to 
say, who gets the benefit of the tax benefit; what kind of bang for the 
buck do you get for this spending out of the back door?--70 percent of 
the benefits in this proposal would go to the top 20 percent of the 
income scale, that is to say, families with annual incomes of at least 
$93,222 would get the majority of the benefits in this bill. Fully 84 
percent of the benefits would go to families making more than $75,000 a 
year.
  The poorest families in this country, those in the bottom 20 percent 
of the income scale, would receive 0.4 percent of the benefits of this 
spending out of the back door.
  Let me say that again: 0.4 percent, less than one-half of 1 percent, 
of the benefits go to the 20 percent of the population of this country 
who have the least money.
  These bars on this chart here really set this out. These are not my 
numbers. These are Department of the Treasury's numbers. Quite frankly, 
we would have had a chance to debate this had the bill come up through 
committee in the normal and ordinary course of things. But since we did 
not get that chance, we just were kind of surprised with having to vote 
for cloture on this bill today. We have not really had a chance to 
thrash through these numbers.
  But anyway, the Department of the Treasury tells us that in this 
legislation, the lowest 20 percent, as you can see, get the lowest 
amount out of this legislation. The highest income people get the 
highest amount. Families in the highest income quintile would reap $96 
a year in benefits from this bill, that is to say, families with 
incomes over $93,000 a year. They would see $96 of benefits in an 
average year.
  Those in the fourth quintile--those earning more than $55,000 a 
year--would see only $32 in benefits in a given year.
  Families in the third income quintile--those earning at least 
$33,000--would get only $7 per year. So $7 for the middle-class 
families earning between $33,000 and $55,000 a year--$7.
  Families in the first and second income quintiles--those earning less 
than $33,000--would get virtually nothing from this plan. And you can 
see that on the chart.
  So really what you wind up with is a tax expenditure that creates a 
loophole, backdoor spending that will benefit rich people.
  All of my colleagues who have had doubts about--and we have debated 
in other contexts the voucher plans, and this and that and the other, 
and how to approach education finance in these times. We need to have 
that debate because there is no question but that we have great 
challenges before us in terms of the reform of schools and providing 
reform of the schools so that this generation of children will have an 
opportunity at least as great as the last generation gave all of us in 
this Chamber.
  At the core, this debate is about what kind of educational system are 
we going to have. I was a product of the Chicago public schools. I am 
proud to say that, because the public schools in Chicago gave me a 
quality education in a time when my parents certainly could not afford 
to send us to private schools. They did, from time to time, choose the 
private and the parochial schools in the area. And I went to Catholic 
school myself on a couple of occasions.

  But the fact is that the public schools in my neighborhood were good 
public schools. So it was a legitimate set of choices. We had good 
public schools, good Catholic schools, good private schools. We could 
choose between good and good and good. So it was just a matter of the 
nuances of the educational opportunity that our parents wanted to give 
us that made the difference in their decisionmaking.
  As we have gotten to this time, we are really challenged by the fact 
that there is not the kind of equal choice among and between 
educational opportunities for these young people. Very often--all too 
often--the public schools are troubled. Everybody who has given up on 
trying to fix public education, fix the public schools, says, ``OK. 
Fine. To heck with them. Let's go create something else. Let's go 
support something else. Let's go voucher out over here. Let's send our 
kids to the Catholic schools. And let's go to the private schools,'' or 
whatever.
  They will come up with alternatives as opposed to confronting and 
facing what do we do about providing quality public education to every 
child that will allow every child the same opportunity, will allow 
every child a chance to climb up the ladder of opportunity. Because, 
after all, Mr. President, as I think everybody is aware, the rungs on 
the ladder of opportunity in this country are crafted in the classroom. 
The kind of education that a child gets not only is important to that 
child as an individual, but to our community as a whole.
  It just seems to me that we cannot afford to lose a single child. We 
cannot afford to triage our educational system, cutting off the schools 
that have to deal with the problem cases, that have to deal with the 
poorest students, and letting everybody else go out and take advantage 
of tax loopholes to provide themselves education in another venue 
altogether.
  Mr. President, the distributional effects of this tax expenditure 
really are easily explainable. Again, had we had a chance to talk about 
this in committee, we would have had that kind of debate. But to talk 
about why this works out this way, if you think about it, low- and 
moderate-income families, people that make $33,000 a year are having a 
hard enough time putting food on the table for their families as 
opposed to being able to just salt away and save an additional $2,500 a 
year, which is at the core of this proposal.

  It should be apparent--maybe it isn't--the contradiction in this 
proposal. It calls itself ``an education individual retirement 
account.'' The fact of the matter is, retirement accounts are supposed 
to be for people in their sunset years, money put away for retirement 
when they can no longer work. If you say we are going to use that 
vehicle to let people use money for a lot of other things, then you 
are, by definition, defeating the notion that people will be able to 
save, put secure money away, and let it build up so they can retire on 
it.
  This says, OK, we will use the vehicle for the retirement account 
model to let people save for private education. Assuming for a moment 
that made sense, again, what do you do when you have a situation where 
the people who need it the most get it the least? What do you do when 
people who are making $33,000 a year who can't salt away $2,500 a year 
for this, who can't build up the interest in the accounts? That is an 
important part of this--who can't build up the interest in these 
accounts. What happens to them in this situation? They wind up being 
left out in the cold.
  If we are thinking about the bang for the buck for tax expenditures, 
this backdoor set of expenditures, it seems to me, it is the taxpayers 
who are going to be called on to help make up the difference with the 
loophole we have created, and they will get the least from it.
  Mr. President, there is another whole set of issues in this bill 
that, again, had we been able to talk about it in committee we could 
have gone further in understanding the meaning of the actual language 
of the legislation. The bill defines ``qualified elementary and

[[Page S11509]]

secondary education expenses'' as ``tuition, fees, tutoring, special 
needs services, books, supplies, computer equipment . . . and other 
equipment, transportation, and supplementary expenses required for the 
enrollment or attendance of the designated beneficiary of the trust at 
a public, private or religious school.''
  In addition, the bill provides a ``Special rule for home schooling'' 
so any of the above expenses qualify if the child is home schooled.
  I just read it off, and I have the words in front of me, what does 
any of this mean? What does ``required transportation expenses for home 
schooled child'' mean? If you are staying at home, do you still get a 
transportation deduction? Does that mean a new car for mom and dad? 
What does that mean? We don't have enough information to make decisions 
about the $4 billion expenditure without having debate in this 
committee.
  Now, given the broad nature of the language of the bill, the 
possibilities for abuse are almost limitless, except for one caveat: 
The ability to use these provisions and reap the benefits of this broad 
statute would be restricted, again, almost exclusively to the 
wealthiest Americans.
  Now, it is OK to say we want to give rich people tax cuts. If that is 
the argument, that is fine. But it seems to me it is not altogether 
appropriate to dress it up and say that we are doing this for the poor 
children of America when, in fact, this is a tax subsidy for wealthy 
people. And they just got a tax cut. It would be different if they had 
not just gotten a tax cut.
  An argument in the Finance Committee with the last bill--which I 
supported, the tax bill--was that we were cutting taxes at that time in 
ways that would benefit the wealthiest Americans. There are some people 
in the committee that didn't have a problem with that, who said the 
wealthiest Americans pay the most in taxes, they should get the most 
back. If that is the argument, that is fine. But it seems to me 
somebody ought to say that. The people ought to say that instead of 
wrapping it up in ``education reform terms'' when, in fact, the goal of 
educational reform, of saving our school system, will not be achieved.
  I have other specific concerns with this legislation.
  The bill attempts to limit the availability of these educational 
savings accounts to single-filers with annual incomes below $95,000, 
and joint-filers with annual incomes below $160,000. During the Ways 
and Means markup, however, the question was asked whether a wealthy 
taxpayer could avoid this limitation by making a gift to the taxpayer's 
child, who would then make the contribution to the education savings 
account. According to the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 
bill would permit such a shell game, as long as the child earned less 
than $95,000. They described the income limitations on the education 
savings accounts as ``porous.''
  Mr. President, in addition to benefitting only the wealthy and being 
written in such as way as to be virtually unadministrable, there is yet 
another problem with this bill which leads me to believe we are 
considering this bill mostly for symbolic reasons. In order to meet the 
revenue figures required by the offset that has been chosen, the bill 
only allows contributions to be made to the new education IRA's for 
elementary and secondary education for the next 5 years.
  Mr. President, the purpose of IRA's is to encourage long-term 
savings. The proposal before us today makes a mockery of this concept, 
by allowing contributions for only a 5-year period. In so doing, it 
also creates a situation where everyone who puts money into these 
accounts will need to hire accountants to figure out what they are 
allowed to do and how much they are allowed to various education and 
education-related activities.
  The bill allows contributions of up to $2,500 for the first 5 years. 
These contributions, and the interest earned on these contributions, 
could then be withdrawn at any time to meet certain education expenses 
from kindergarten through college. After the first 5 years, however, 
the bill limits contributions to $500. These contributions, and the 
interest earned on these contributions, could then be withdrawn only to 
meet certain higher education expenses. Over a long period of time, the 
bill thus creates a situation where some amount of the interest that 
has accumulated in the accounts could be withdrawn for one purpose, 
while other interest that has accumulated concurrently could only be 
withdrawn for another purpose. To say that these accounts would be 
difficult to manage is an understatement.
  Let me say this in closing, I encourage my colleagues to redirect 
this retreat from quality public education in this country. There is no 
question but that we have to reform the public school system. There is 
no question but that the Federal Government certainly needs to do more 
in terms of supporting elementary and secondary education. We are right 
now paying less than 6 percent of the cost of the public schools in 
this country, which is not fair. It is not fair to property taxpayers. 
It is not fair to local taxpayers. In the main, education funding comes 
out of the local property taxes all over this country. If you ask 
anybody what is the tax they hate the most, it is their local property 
taxes.
  We are, for all intents and purposes, tying the ability to fund the 
schools to people who have fixed incomes and who really don't have the 
ability to pay more in property taxes. That is one of the reasons why 
the schools are troubled, frankly, in so many areas of this country. 
Those communities that have the least property taxes, that have the 
least ability to expand in that regard, have the most troubled schools. 
Why? Because you have tied education to fixed incomes or to declining 
tax bases.
  We have a General Accounting Office study, in fact, that shows that 
the poorest areas in the country make the most tax effort to try to pay 
for their schools. It seems to me, Mr. President, that with all these 
issues to take up and with all of the challenges to reform public 
education so that every child in America can access a quality 
education, we ought to do that in the context of having open debate, 
not trying to shut off debate on something that, again, effectively 
only helps the wealthiest Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this retreat from public education, to 
reject this retreat from education reform, to oppose this measure, and 
to vote against cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I understand the leadership on the other side and the 
NEA are endeavoring to filibuster this proposal, but they will not 
succeed in the long run. This is going to happen.
  I do want to respond quickly to several of the remarks of the Senator 
from Illinois. First, the figures from the Treasury Department have 
been ridiculed and rejected. They have absolutely no credibility. That 
is the same formula they used to try to discredit the other tax relief. 
They used imputed income --if you rent your house, that sort of thing.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation says 75 percent of all these proceeds 
will go to people making $75,000 or less.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I cannot yield because of the time. I know the Senator 
will appreciate that.
  I also want to point out that the formula that governs this account 
is the same one the Senator from Illinois voted for in the tax relief 
plan when the IRA saving account was set up for higher education. It is 
identical. The Senator from Illinois has already voted for this 
account. The distribution of the moneys is identical. In those 
accounts, like these accounts, 70 percent of it will go to families 
earning $75,000 or less.
  The Senate and House have already expressed themselves on it. It is 
means tested. It is the same formula your President and my President 
requested be put in place. The same one that governs those accounts, 
you and I both voted for, as did the vast majority. It is the same 
formula on this account.
  Now, the Senator has suggested this is something new. This is an IRA. 
They have been here for 17 years. The Senate already cast 59 votes for 
this account in the tax relief proposal. The House has passed it. This 
is not some new idea, snaking through the Halls of Congress. We have 
been dealing with IRA's for almost two decades.
  The last point I make, and I understand the misunderstanding because 
of

[[Page S11510]]

some of the administration views, I want to remind the Senator that 70 
percent of all these new resources which would supplement education 
will go to students in public schools. Public schools are going to be 
the big winner here. And 10.8 million families with children in public 
schools will use these accounts--so there will be an enrichment of the 
public school system--of the 14 million, so that means less than 3 
million will be in private schools.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk 
to H.R. 2646.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 2646, the 
     Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools:
         Trent Lott, Paul Coverdell, Robert F. Bennett, Pat 
           Roberts, Strom Thurmond, Gordon H. Smith, Bill Frist, 
           Mike DeWine, Larry E. Craig, Don Nickles, Connie Mack, 
           Jeff Sessions, Conrad Burns, Lauch Faircloth, Thad 
           Cochran, and Wayne Allard.

  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
colleague from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, 
for yielding time to me. I am very proud to join with him in offering 
this proposal today.
  Mr. President, I think there is a growing awareness in our country 
that the status quo in education is no longer good enough, that there 
is a need for fundamental reform in the financing and the standards and 
our approach to educating our children in the grade school and high 
school levels.
  This legislation offers the promise of a new beginning in how we 
approach educational reform. In a time of limited budgets, as we seek 
to balance the Federal budget, we are marshaling private resources. At 
a time when families have been separated from the challenge of 
educating their own children, we are challenging families to get 
involved again. At a time when some are fighting between private 
education and public education, we seek to help both.
  Senator Coverdell and I do this in what I think is an imaginative 
approach, what really is no more than an extension of what President 
Clinton proposed to do and achieve with his HOPE scholarships for 
colleges, we do for high schools and grade schools.
  We do it in the following fashion: It is a challenge to all families 
of middle-income status--$95,000 and below. From the time of the birth 
of your child, you, uncles, aunts, grandparents, can put into a tax-
free account, $10, $20, $100 a month, put money aside to prepare for 
the education of your child. In private school, parochial school, if 
you choose a yeshiva, or in public schools--indeed, the Joint Tax 
Committee has estimated 70 percent of this money will go for public 
school students--by allowing families to plan, recognizing that a 
public school education, is no longer a matter of 8:30 in the morning 
to 3 o'clock in the afternoon with just a teacher. The whole family has 
to get involved.
  Use this money to buy a home computer, pay for transportation after 
school so a student can get tutoring, extracurricular activities, or 
hire a public school teacher after school or on weekends to get 
involved in tutoring. It is the marshaling of family resources, family 
involvement, to help either complement that public education or allow 
for a private education.
  Now, the question becomes, is it wrong to even use these private 
resources to help with a private education? Unlike Senator Coverdell, I 
have, through the years, opposed the use of vouchers, because I thought 
it was a diversion of public resources at a time when the public 
schools cannot afford the loss of resources. I had constitutional 
reservations. On vouchers, we can all differ. This is not a voucher. 
There is not a constitutional issue because this is private money, not 
Government money. There is not an issue of compromising current 
resources for public education because this is private money, and it is 
new money. Not a single dollar is lost from the public schools by the 
use of these IRA's. But is it needed? For those who do not want to 
address the problem of private education, does it really help the 90 
percent of American students who go to public schools? Absolutely. 
President Clinton has put a challenge down to the country: By the year 
2000, every American school should be on line. But American students do 
their homework and research at home. Seventy percent of American 
students do not have a computer in the home. Eighty-five percent of 
black and Hispanic students do not have a computer at home. Under Mr. 
Coverdell's proposal, that would be allowed from these accounts.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding the time. I am very 
proud to join with him in offering the A-plus accounts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 2646.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 2646, the 
     Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools.
         Trent Lott, Paul Coverdell, Robert F. Bennett, Pat 
           Roberts, Strom Thurmond, Gordon H. Smith, Bill Frist, 
           Mike DeWine, Larry E. Craig, Don Nickles, Connie Mack, 
           Jeff Sessions, Conrad Burns, Lauch Faircloth, Thad 
           Cochran, and Wayne Allard.


                            Call of the Roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on H.R. 2646, the A-plus education bill, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the 
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], and the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 288 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Baucus
     Rockefeller
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
41. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S11511]]

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
proceed for 5 minutes notwithstanding rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________