[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 27 (Friday, March 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1925-S1930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

  Mr. LOTT. I now move to proceed to H.R. 2646, the Coverdell education 
bill, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provision of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to H.R. 2646, the A+Education Act:
         Trent Lott, Paul Coverdell, Craig Thomas, Rod Grams, 
           Chuck Hagel, Tim Hutchinson, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mike 
           DeWine, Bob Bennett, John McCain, Don Nickles, Chuck 
           Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Wayne Allard, Phil Gramm, 
           John Ashcroft.

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that this cloture vote occur at 
12:15 on Tuesday, March 17, and the mandatory quorum under Rule XII be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor for Members to begin the debate on a 
motion to proceed.
  I thank Senator Glenn for allowing me to complete that action.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is a bit unexpected that the other 
side is continuing to filibuster a very common sense educational 
proposal.
  We began this odyssey on June 27, 1997, when the Senate passed an 
amendment offered by myself to create educational savings accounts, and 
it passed 59-41. Subsequent to that, the President of the United States 
indicated that he would veto the entire tax relief package of last year 
if this amendment remained in the bill. We will come to that a bit 
later. It was then introduced as freestanding legislation, and the 
other side debated it, filibustered it, and indicated that the 
filibuster was based entirely on the fact that it had not gone through 
the committee appropriately. It was a procedural filibuster. So they 
denied the opportunity to develop the educational savings account at 
that time. We were unable to break their filibuster, though we received 
56 votes, needing 60 to do it. I remember the other side saying it is 
really not a bad idea; it's just the process.
  Well, in this setting of the Congress, this legislation has now gone 
through the Finance Committee and has been reported to the floor 11-8 
on a bipartisan basis. The legislation has been expanded considerably--
which I will address in a moment--to meet the thoughts of the other 
side. Eighty percent of the financial impact of the legislation now, in 
terms of tax relief, is based on ideas from the other side.
  We come today, after finalizing the highway matter, to bring an 
educational proposal before the Senate, to move on with the work of the 
Senate, remembering that the House has already passed this. We are 
confronted with a filibuster. The emperor has no clothes--we have now 
removed everything that was brought forward by the other side and we 
are still in a filibuster.
  Now, the good Senator from Illinois says that this filibuster deals 
with two nominees for the judiciary from his State. I take the Senator 
at his word. But my suspicions are great. I recognize that the other 
side, despite what was said last year, despite what was done in the 
Finance Committee, is filibustering these ideas. They are defending the 
status quo. It's mind-boggling to me, looking at the data that we read 
almost on a weekly basis here about what is happening, particularly in 
grades kindergarten through high school, that we would be so ardently 
defending the status quo and standing in front of and blocking every 
idea coming forward--even their own ideas.
  This filibuster, in a word, is outrageous. It is prolonged far beyond 
process. It is nothing more than a defense of the status quo. I leave 
it with that word, Mr. President, ``outrageous''; it is an outrageous 
attempt to thwart and block these new ideas that are designed to help 
parents and children and people trying to improve their education as we 
come into the new century.
  Now, Mr. President, let me talk about this idea that the other side 
can't seem to embrace--at least a good number of them. I must say 
before I proceed, Mr. President, that Senator Torricelli of New Jersey, 
my principal cosponsor, has been tireless in his work on the other side 
to promote this commonsense idea of creating education savings accounts 
for American families. He has been a great ally, fearless in his work 
of trying to take the case to his colleagues. I just can't praise his 
work enough. There have been others, such as Senator Breaux, in the 
Finance Committee, and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, and Senator 
Graham of Florida who have brought meaningful ideas to the proposal 
that we are trying to bring to the floor to debate. If you listen to 
the unanimous consent proposal of the majority leader, it could not 
have been framed in a more balanced way to let the other side make its 
case and have its votes and then move on to the work of perfecting 
education savings accounts.
  Filibuster is the only response we have gotten.
  Filibuster.
  Now, the threat of the idea, Mr. President, is last year in the tax 
bill passed by the Senate, passed by the House, signed by the President 
in a glorious celebration at the White House--they don't come with much 
more pomp than the celebration of signing the balanced budget agreement 
and the tax relief proposal--the first balanced budget in 30 years, the 
first tax relief in 16 years. Embraced in that tax relief was a 
proposal that said that a family can save $500 per year and the 
interest buildup would be protected from taxation, so long as the 
proceeds in the account are used for higher education costs. It was 
means tested, which I don't generally subscribe to. It was means tested 
for taxpayers, as an individual making $95,000 or less, or a couple 
making $150,000 or less. This IRA of $500 could be used by families 
that met that criteria.
  So our proposal, which passed the Senate and the House and which the 
President could not accept and is now before us in this legislation, is 
quite simple. It took the $500 that the family could save every year 
for college, and we said that we are going to make that larger, we are 
going to increase it from $500 to $2,000. And, Mr. President, we said 
we are going to make it applicable to all education needs--not just 
college, but beginning in kindergarten, first, second, third, right on 
through high school. The account is made larger so that more money can 
be saved and more dollars can be made available for college and/or any 
educational need, kindergarten through high school. That is it. That is 
what is being filibustered.
  This savings account, by moving it to kindergarten through high 
school, allows vast new resources to be used where we are having the 
most difficulty. There is no higher education system in the world that 
competes with ours. It's true that costs are a problem, and these 
accounts address that. But when you look at kindergarten through high 
school, we don't stand up all that well to the rest of the world. So 
this is an attempt to make us, the parents, more able to deal with 
problems associated in grades kindergarten through high school or, if 
they want, through college or, if needed, for a disabled student even 
after that. So we have taken an idea that has been passed by the 
Senate, passed by the House, signed by the President, and expanded it 
to do more. And the other side is filibustering that.
  There is no difference in the criteria, the means testing, the 
function of the account. It is just made larger and adds

[[Page S1926]]

more utility. It can be used in more places. Mr. President, the cost of 
this proposal, in the context of our budget, is pretty minuscule. Over 
5 years, it allows families to save about $760 million across the 
Nation. But, Mr. President, it will involve, according to the Tax 
Committee, about 14 million families. That is almost half the families 
with children in elementary school years. I wish we could leverage 
everything like this. Because these families will be able to save this 
money from taxation, our estimates are that they will, on their own, 
save in the first 4 years nearly $5 billion for educational purposes at 
a minimum. Over the next 8 years, it will approach over $10 billion to 
$12 billion--not one of which is a tax dollar. No board of education 
had to raise the property tax. The Federal Government didn't have to 
raise new taxes. No State government did.
  These are families coming forward with the incentive that the savings 
will not be taxed if they are used for the children's education. This 
massive resource of new money will be coming to help educate America, 
and we are leveraging this very small amount of tax relief by a 
multiple of about 15.
  Again, Mr. President, you are bringing to the table billions of new 
dollars voluntarily. They are private dollars. They are very smart 
dollars. Why do I say ``smart'' dollars? Because these are dollars in 
parents' checking accounts--parents who understand the unique problem 
the child is having--if the child does not have a home computer, the 
account can be used to do that; if the child has a math deficiency, it 
buys a tutor; if the child cannot get to the after-school program; 
needs a band uniform, whatever. These accounts can go right to the 
targeted need. It is hard for public dollars to do that even though 
public dollars do good things. If the child has dyslexia and needs a 
special education tutor, these dollars can go right to the unique 
problem that the child is having.
  Mr. President, everybody wins. Most proposals we have here--I know 
the Presiding Officer is aware of this--take something from over here, 
and puts it over there. There is a winner and a loser. There are no 
losers in this proposal. If the child is in public school, they can 
take advantage of the account. If they are in private schools or 
religious schools or if they are homeschooled, it does not matter. 
Every child, no matter where they are being educated, benefits from 
this account; every child.
  As I said, Mr. President, it very quickly assembles billions of new, 
very intelligent dollars.
  In the numbers I am quoting I am not including a unique feature of 
this account that we do not find in other IRA savings accounts. And it 
is most important. This legislation allows for there to be sponsors of 
the account. So Mr. and Mrs. Jones open an education account on the 
year of the birth of their first child. As they go along, they can put 
whatever they can afford to save in the account. But so can the 
grandparents. So can the child's grandparents. So can a next-door 
neighbor. So can a church. Mr. President, so can an employer, or a 
labor union, or a benevolent association. Anyone can contribute to 
these accounts.
  So the numbers I have given, which are multibillions of nontax 
dollars being assembled to help educate America, don't even count what 
will happen when employers decide they are going to open up a savings 
account for every child of their employees, and they will match; or a 
situation where we have a fallen officer and the community is trying to 
understand what to do with the children who are left. They open a 
savings account. They built up that community. That community builds up 
savings for those children to be able to be properly educated. Or, 
instead of a toy that is going to be discarded after the first 24 hours 
of infatuation, the grandparent may make a contribution into the 
grandchild's education savings account.
  The ideas are limitless. We can't even contemplate the magnitude of 
the resources ultimately drawn to this concept and targeted to the 
particular needs of children. But it will be massive.
  Mr. President, one aspect of this concept for which no one can 
devalue is what happens when an account is opened for a specific child? 
A light goes on. There is a connection, almost like a massive PTA 
movement. From that point on, that family will be paying attention to 
that account. They will be setting aside resources that they otherwise 
would not have set aside to help their children's education, and they 
will because they will be thinking about it. They will be thinking 
about the needs of the child. They will get a regular statement from 
the financial institution that has the account reminding them 
constantly of the purpose of the education account, and the 
grandparent, as I said, or the extended family and neighbors, and 
community, the church. We have seen many stories of philanthropists 
trying to help children in inner-city schools. This will be a tool that 
they will use.

  My point is, Mr. President, that every time one of these accounts 
gets opened there has been a focused decision made to help that child 
through their education, and the result, therefore, as I said a moment 
ago, will be 14 million families who use the accounts. But how many 
other millions of Americans--there is no way to know--will come to 
these accounts and be connected to them? So vast numbers of Americans 
will become involved almost like a Liberty bond. I know the Presiding 
Officer remembers Liberty bonds and the connection that was occurring. 
You got them at your birthday. It was a patriotic financial commitment. 
But it had a benefit. It made everybody connect to the cause of the 
Nation. The Nation has a cause here in education. We have a crisis in 
kindergarten through high school. We need to start generating many 
ideas. This is just one, although this is a multibillion-dollar one. 
But we need many new ideas to start focusing the Nation's attention on 
making sure that our children are ready to govern the next century.
  Mr. President, I have often talked about the essence of American 
freedom and that it was American freedom that made us the people we 
are. One of the principal dynamics of American freedom is an educated 
population. An uneducated people cannot remain free. An uneducated mind 
cannot enjoy the benefits of American citizenship. Unfortunately, we 
are seeing too many of our young population whose futures and ability 
to participate in true American freedom are being stunted, and we as a 
Congress and people must be more focused on changing these 
circumstances and making sure that we leave no American child behind. 
This is an important tool for families. This is an important tool for 
corporations and other entities to help generate the resources that can 
be directed at the child's specific problems.
  Mr. President, the Finance Committee took the education savings 
account, and, as I said earlier, expanded it to include other education 
initiatives that are equally important. They have added relief for 
qualified State tuition plans. Across the Nation in about 21 States, 
parents are allowed to purchase contracts that lock in tomorrow's 
tuition costs at today's prices.
  This legislation will make savings in these plans completely tax free 
when they are drawn down when the child begins college. This is a very 
important provision, and that will not only help the 21 States who have 
generated these plans and allow people to decide how to prepare for 
college education, but the other States will join them, because once 
this is law more than 21 States will offer these types of plans. Plan 
holders will face no Federal tax on interest buildup.
  The bill also includes employer-provided educational assistance. The 
legislation extends the inclusion for employers who pay for their 
employees' tuition through 2002 and expands it to include graduate 
students beginning in 1998. The inclusion allows employers to pay up to 
$5,250 per year for educational expenses.
  The legislation will also allow school districts and other local 
government entities to issue up to $15 million in tax-exempt bonds for 
full construction. This increases the limit by 33 percent from the 
current $10 million. The legislation also revises the tax treatment of 
National Health Corps Scholarships so that these scholarships are 
excluded from gross income.
  So, Mr. President, in addition to the education savings account, we 
are dealing with parents' ability to provide for college education 
through prepaid State tuition plans. We are helping employers and their 
employees deal with

[[Page S1927]]

continuing education, and we are helping the construction of schools 
across the country, particularly in small school districts.
  These ideas are representative of a very bipartisan effort on both 
sides of the aisle. I commend and thank each of the Senators on the 
Finance Committee who made these contributions, particularly Senator 
Breaux and Senator Graham.
  I said a little earlier before my colleague from New Jersey arrived 
how much I praise his work and activity on behalf of this effort. I 
can't say enough about it. It has been tireless. I am prepared, if the 
Senator from New Jersey is ready, to yield to him at this time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I would like to first compliment the 
Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, for his tireless work through 
these months to bring the Senate to the position of voting on the A+ 
savings account. I have been his partner in this effort, and something 
that has genuinely become bipartisan. I am very proud of our efforts.

  Mr. President, I begin with a personal view on the debate about 
education in our country. People have different thoughts and very 
varied proposals. Many are the reasons, and I could accept much about 
the alternatives except one thing. I cannot accept, and I do not 
understand, those who would come to the Senate and argue the state of 
American education and defend the status quo. American education needs 
to be addressed, not in the margins but in every fundamental aspect of 
the delivery of education to our children. Indeed, at a time in 
American life when so much is working, the economy is performing, 
Americans feel good about our country and its future, faith on any 
analysis, the single most compelling problem, the most fundamental 
dilemma that threatens the American future, quality of life, our 
economic performance, even our political stability, is the quality of 
American education.
  Recent reports are startling. Forty percent of our students are 
failing basic science. Forty percent of fourth graders are failing to 
test at the basic levels of reading comprehension. Of the 21 developed 
democracies in the world that have achieved an industrial status, 
America ranks 19th in the testing of our students.
  The legislation before the Senate can accomplish many things, but if 
it only establishes some new funding, if it does no more than establish 
savings accounts, then it falls far short of my ambitions. My hope 
about the Coverdell-Torricelli legislation is that it will genuinely 
confront the entire status quo of how Americans regard education.
  It does this in several ways. But, first, what is important to 
understand about it is that this is not a voucher. Senator Coverdell 
and I come together on this legislation, but we come at it from 
different perspectives, perhaps. Senator Coverdell supports a voucher 
on other days and other debates in the Senate. I do not. That may be 
the best indication for those Senators who are thinking about their 
positions and how they relate to the voucher issue. I have opposed it 
because, while I believe in private education and its critical role for 
America, I do not believe we can afford to divert a single dollar of 
public education funding to private schools, not because they don't 
need it, but because the public schools can't afford it. The Coverdell-
Torricelli program for A+ savings accounts does not divert a penny of 
public money into private schools.
  This is all new money. But, mostly, it is not government money. The 
money that would go into these savings accounts and allow people to 
either provide extra funding for public activities or for their private 
tuitions is entirely money that belongs to American families, their own 
money. That is a critical part of this debate. Whether you are an 
advocate of public education or private education or, as in my case, 
both, we are talking about new resources for education in America. How 
can anyone look at the status of American education today, with the 
failing grades of our students, and oppose a measure that at the end of 
the day means more funding for education, and not from government, but 
an avenue for families to contribute themselves? That is the question 
that every Senator should be asking themselves.
  Ironically, some will come to this floor arguing against our proposal 
because of their concern about public education, not recognizing that 
not only do we not divert public funds from the public schools, but 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 75 percent of all the 
parents who use these A+ savings accounts will be the parents of public 
school students. It may be the most exciting aspect of the entire 
program.
  With 90 percent of all American students attending public schools, 
the reality is those schools are not providing many of the services 
that they provided 20 and 30 years ago. As a student of a public 
suburban school in northern New Jersey 25 and 30 years ago, our school 
provided extracurricular activities for athletics, transportation for 
after-school activities, club activities and access to the technology 
of the time. In many American suburban school districts those 
activities no longer exist. Under the A+ savings accounts, parents, 
from the birth of a child, will be able to put a little money aside 
every year so their students, in public school, can pay for those 
activities where local governments no longer provide them.
  But one thing more. Public school students today who are struggling 
with new science and new math, learning a new language, testing the 
limits of their ability to learn, increasingly need tutors. Indeed, 
with advanced science today, how many public school high school 
students can learn some of the advanced sciences without the assistance 
after school of a tutor? Under our proposal, the money in these A+ 
savings accounts is available to hire a public schoolteacher or other 
instructor after school, so students can make up that work and excel in 
their chosen subject. So, much of this debate may be about private 
education, but, in a great irony, much of the benefit may be for public 
school students.

  Then the question inevitably turns to private schools. For all of us 
who through the years have had doubts about vouchers, we are 
questioning whether this is the better idea. As I said earlier, first, 
there is no diversion of public funds so there is no argument about 
taking resources away from public schools that remain inadequately 
financed. But the question remains about the role of private education 
generally in American society. It is not some marginalized concern. We 
are not discussing a few private boarding schools for an elite American 
financial class. Mr. President, 15 percent of all American students 
attend a private or parochial school--a Yeshiva, a Catholic school, a 
private school on any other basis. If those schools did not exist, if 
we allowed these private schools simply, over time, to deteriorate and 
close--recognizing that every year 50 to 70 private schools in America 
close their doors never to open again--if that trend were to continue, 
it would cost the United States $16 billion a year to build and operate 
enough public schools to make up the difference. Where is it these 
students would go? How would we provide the opportunity, at a time when 
the public schools already face massive construction problems and are 
inadequately financed?
  But, more compelling, maybe--who are these students going to most of 
these private schools? Are we, indeed, creating a means of families 
saving money to fund the education of an elite? Not in my State nor New 
York nor Illinois nor California nor any State where our great urban 
centers are located. Mr. President, 91 percent of all the students in 
parochial schools in Camden, NJ, are members of minority groups; 60 to 
70 percent of all those who attend parochial schools in New York are 
Protestants. These schools are filling a role in our urban centers 
where parents feel they have no other choice. Working-class families in 
an urban environment who want a decent opportunity for their children 
look honestly at the public schools and may not feel that they can meet 
their responsibility to their own children without availing themselves 
of private schools. More than anything else, this legislation is about 
giving those middle-income families that chance--save $2,000 a year to 
have the option of sending their child to a private school.

[[Page S1928]]

  Yet, the argument continues to be made every day, middle-income 
families will never be able to afford this opportunity; this will 
simply be another gift to the wealthy in America. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. The Joint Committee on Tax estimates that 70 
percent of the families who will use a Coverdell-Torricelli A+ savings 
account, 70 percent, earn less than $75,000 a year. This is a direct 
benefit to families that are struggling to provide an educational 
option for their child.
  One of the things that excites me the most about this plan is not 
just that middle-income families can save for their children's 
education, or the extra quality for the public school child. It is the 
ability to get families involved again in a child's education. It was 
not so long ago in America when people lined up to vote in school board 
elections and aunts and uncles would participate in helping to tutor a 
child; where grandparents would sit with a child; where a family 
participated in the educational experience. For a lot of reasons--
people working and the demands on their day and their finances--we have 
lost that part of America. But think about this aspect of the 
Coverdell-Torricelli A+ savings account: That on a birthday, a holiday, 
an aunt, an uncle, a grandparent, can take a few dollars and put that 
money into this savings account to allow a child to continue with his 
or her education, whether to buy a computer for a public school student 
or tuition for a private school student. These accounts are a chance 
for a family to become involved in educating a child. And that is a 
part of the crisis in education in America--the family has removed 
itself.
  Not so long ago I asked a major labor leader in America, if we pass 
the Coverdell-Torricelli A+ savings account, how would it impact your 
union, the members of your unions? He said, ``Simple. The next time we 
go to contract negotiations I am putting on the table, along with pay 
increases and health benefits, I want $5 a week, $10 a week in the 
contract where an employer contributes to a savings account to help my 
members educate their children.'' Think of it, major corporations who 
can attract talent and workers by agreeing to put money in these 
savings accounts--and unions, and professional associations. Every 
dollar is new money to education in America. And not a dollar is coming 
from the Federal Treasury or from local governments or taxpayers. It is 
on a voluntary basis, getting people involved, at every level, back in 
education.
  Yet, I come back to challenging Members of the Senate to think about 
this not simply in terms of the tuition of the private school student 
but to think in broader terms. Not so long ago I read in the Washington 
Post, a high school senior in Maryland was asked about the changing 
nature of school. Tiffany Johnson replied, ``It is totally impossible 
to function without a computer now in school. It's a big handicap not 
to have one at home.''
  Most people who think about Coverdell-Torricelli are thinking about 
private school and tuition. They need to look at this issue again. They 
need to think about Tiffany Johnson, because 60 percent of all students 
in America do not have access to a home computer for calculations, 
research, or word processing. As Tiffany Johnson has attested, in the 
world in which we live, researching term papers, writing essays without 
a home computer is going to create two classes of students in America: 
The students of the families of the upper middle-class and wealthy and 
professional Americans, who can afford the software and the home 
computers, and the rest of America that cannot. Mr. President, 60 
percent of Americans do not have those computers--except for minority 
parents. Minority parents, 85 percent of African Americans and Hispanic 
Americans, do not have access to home computers. We are creating 
another dividing line in American education.
  Under the Coverdell-Torricelli A+ savings accounts, that money is not 
only available for extracurricular activities of public school 
students, not only for tutoring public school students, transportation 
of public school students, tuition of private school students, uniforms 
for public or private school students, it is available for home 
computers for public and private school students.
  What will we be doing, taxing the money of American families who are 
trying to buy a home computer for their child to be competitive in 
school? These savings accounts allow that money without the Federal 
Government taking its share of taxation.
  Mr. President, I say to Members of the Senate, I have not been in 
this institution long, but in the time I have been here, I have heard 
compelling arguments based on realistic assessments of American life 
for different proposals. Rarely have I been more persuaded of a 
compelling need with an overwhelming argument to address a national 
problem. This is not the end of the education debate in America; it is 
the compelling issue of our time.
  Education remains the great question about whether or not we preserve 
our standard of living and the America that we have known and come to 
value and cherish. This debate will have to be followed with the 
question of, How are we going to rebuild the two-thirds of American 
schools that are crumbling around us, raise the compensation of 
American teachers who can no longer afford to remain in the profession 
that they love and where they are needed? How will we continue to 
finance access to higher education for middle-income families who are 
being separated from their ambitions?
  This is a debate that will consume not simply this Senate but the 
next Congress and Congresses to come, but this is a beginning and it is 
a valuable contribution. I want to see the Coverdell-Torricelli A+ 
savings accounts enacted, but I want something more; I want it to be 
bipartisan; I want the vote to be overwhelming.
  My party has been privileged through most of the last 30 years, from 
the financing of higher education to support for public education, to 
have been in the leadership of every fight for quality education in 
America.
  I say with all deference to my colleagues across the aisle, through 
much of that time, we were not often challenged for that leadership. 
Education has been the province of the Democratic Party for a long 
time. It is good for America that Democrats and Republicans will now 
compete for the leadership in education. But on this proposal, to 
finance savings accounts to bring American families back into the 
financing of their own education, to allow American families to 
participate in the tutoring, the technology, the uniforms, the extra 
school activities, and in the paying of private school tuitions, in 
this matter there should be no competition, because for this plan we 
can be arm in arm.
  I am honored to have joined with Senator Coverdell in offering this 
proposal, that it bears both of our names. I look forward to its 
enactment.
  With this proposal, we can do something right about the problem of 
education in America. We have been discouraged; we have complained; we 
have agonized too long. Let us deal with this fundamental crisis in the 
quality of secondary education by enacting the Coverdell-Torricelli 
proposal.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, while Senator Torricelli is still here, 
I want to pose a couple questions.
  Those who have objected to the proposal have essentially made two 
cases: One, that this would benefit upper-income individuals. While the 
Senator is here, I want to point out--I know he will agree--that the 
criteria for the education savings account are identical to the 
education savings account for higher education that we passed and that 
the President has signed--same means testing, the same concept of 
directing, as the Senator alluded to, 70 to 75 percent of the funds to 
those making $75,000 or less.
  But the key point is we have already passed a savings account. It is 
just that it is only for $500 and only for college. We have taken the 
same account and expanded it to $2,000 and kindergarten through high 
school or disabled student after-college. I am perplexed that, having 
passed this and signed it and celebrated it, we are still hearing 
arguments that this would somehow enrich the rich. I wonder if the 
Senator might comment.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, there is always a desire of a Member 
of the Senate to be philosophically consistent, so I think the question 
bears some scrutiny. Members of the Senate

[[Page S1929]]

have previously voted for Hope scholarships and student loan programs 
in this country, which also have caps on who is eligible to 
participate. The caps the Senate has previously provided are identical 
to what is in the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal. There is a two-income, 
$60,000 cap.
  So when the Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that 70 percent of 
all these benefits will go to families that earn $75,000 and less, the 
reason is that there is a cap in the provision that ensures the 
principal benefits are going to middle-income families, to working 
families. It was designed to accomplish that end.
  But there is another philosophical consistency with people. I have 
people raise with me all the time a legitimate concern whether the 
Government is funding private education. As I pointed out, every dollar 
of this is the family's money, it is not Government's money. But 
Members of the Senate who voted previously for savings accounts for 
higher education have faced this question. I have never heard a Member 
of the Senate rise on this floor and say, ``Well, I'm for savings 
accounts for colleges, but I don't want it for Notre Dame or Harvard.''
  Mr. COVERDELL. Georgetown.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Or Georgetown--whether a religious affiliated school 
or private education; that these should be for private education only. 
I have never heard a Member of the Senate say that. To my judgment, it 
has never happened. The reason is, it would be illogical, it would be 
foolish. And so it would here. This is being done on the same basis. 
This is available for public school students and private school 
students with people's own money. So I think there is a philosophical 
consistency with the college program.
  Mr. COVERDELL. My last question--and the Senator has already hit on 
the point--and that is, if you will read some of the material from the 
opponents, you will think this is legislation exclusively designed to 
deal with private schools. As the Senator pointed out, 70 percent of 
the families using the accounts have children in public schools. 
Billions and billions of dollars will end up enriching students' 
ability to function in public schools. It is almost as if they would 
like to leave that part of the equation out.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Indeed, if I had to identify financially my own 
expectation about the largest single recipient of this funding, I 
suspect there is a chance it would be public schoolteachers who do the 
tutoring after school, who will be hired by families with money from 
these accounts to help students with math and science. They, dollar for 
dollar, may be the largest recipients.
  One point I did not make, and the Senator from Georgia may have made 
earlier, is even if Members of the Senate do not agree with us about 
this need for funding secondary schools, they should recognize that 
every dollar in these accounts at the end of the 12th grade can be 
transferred into a college account. This allows families to get a head 
start in saving money for college.
  So, if you voted last year for these accounts for college, this is a 
chance to expand them considerably to make that money available. On 
that basis alone, Members should feel comfortable in voting for the 
proposal.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from New Jersey, again, for his 
tireless work on behalf of this commonsense proposal.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following list of staff from the Joint Committee on Taxation be granted 
privileges of the floor during the pendency of H.R. 2646. I send the 
list to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, for the last hour we have heard from 
myself and others, Senator Torricelli, about the massive benefits that 
would come to American families if we enact and make possible the tool 
of an education savings account for families to use for their children, 
no matter where they go to school, public, private, home, whether it is 
kindergarten through college or after if the student is disabled. 
Anybody watching this just has to wonder, well, why in the world are we 
in a filibuster?
  How can an idea like this be thwarted, tacks thrown on the road in 
front of it? Why are we in a filibuster? Who would oppose it? It has 
been described as a win-win situation. As I said, any child, in any 
condition, and any family dealing with those conditions can benefit.
  So why the opposition? Well, they said, the money is going to get in 
somebody's hands who does not need it. They are too wealthy. We have 
heard that around here for the last quarter of a century. I just want 
to remind everybody that the criteria that governs this savings account 
is identical, the same, no deviation from the one the President signed 
at the White House last year.
  Both sides of the aisle--Republicans, Democrats; House, Senate and 
President--have all sanctioned, certified, that we should have a 
savings account for college costs. We said the number will be $500 per 
year. Then we means tested it to make sure that it was pushed into 
middle income and down.
  Well, we have taken that account and we have said, instead of $500, 
we will let them save up to $2,000. Instead, of just 4 years of 
college, they can use it kindergarten through college. After all, the 
problem we have is in kindergarten through high school. Everything else 
we left the same. It still pushes the resources to the utilization and 
benefit of the middle class or lower. We know that 75 percent of all 
these funds will go to help those families.
  So it is a mischievous argument to divert attention. It is a 
misrepresentation. It is not so. It is identical to what we have 
already embraced as the appropriate governing criteria for an education 
savings account and celebrated with enormous glory at the White House 
last fall.
  I also add, Mr. President, that all of this money is generated 
because we give minimal tax relief to anybody who puts it in a savings 
account. Over the next 5 years, it is $760 million--over 5 years--of 
tax relief. I wish we could do this in a lot of different areas. That 
$760 million causes American families, 14 million of them, to put about 
$5 billion in savings accounts. That is a 15-1 leverage. Don't we wish 
we could do that in many, many arenas?
  By offering that limited incentive, Americans come forward and 
redirect their own money, put it into savings accounts to help educate 
their children--a massive amount of funds generated by this limited 
effort on our behalf. It is just incredible to see the resulting 
activity that occurs by creating this savings account.
  So that argument gets buried pretty quickly. It is a little hard to 
argue that you thought that was just such a great idea and you had 
protected it for the middle class and less last year, and then take the 
same criteria and say, well, somehow it is different this year. It 
isn't.
  Then, Mr. President, the other side would like everybody to think 
this is an instrument for people who are in a private school or a 
religious school, that the entire purpose of these savings accounts is 
for people outside the public school system.
  The NEA has written a letter to everybody that says that. I would 
expect more of them, because it just isn't so. As we have said, 70 
percent of the families using the accounts will be using them to help 
children in public schools. Only 30 percent will be helping children in 
private schools.
  The grand aggregate of the money, if we only focus on kindergarten 
through high school, is about split, about half these resources--again 
private; these are private dollars, not tax dollars--will be going to 
help students do better in public schools, and about half of it will be 
helping students in private.
  Why isn't it still divided 70-30? It is because they tend to consume, 
in the private school, most of the money for tuition. It is more 
expensive. So their savings accounts probably are larger and they have 
to spend it more quickly and in larger sums. But, still, about half, 
about $2.5 billion, in 4 years, rushes to public schools and about $2.5 
billion for private. At the end of the day who is the beneficiary? 
American children.
  We are going to divert money from public schools, they say. No. These 
are private dollars. These are not tax dollars--after-tax savings, 
after-tax savings--all private dollars. Anybody who

[[Page S1930]]

sends a child to private school is paying for public school through the 
property taxes. There is no money diverted.
  Now, what is the real story? Because it isn't any of this other it 
cannot substantiate. The real opposition is that some families, in the 
big picture statistically insignificant, but some families will open a 
savings account and will make a decision to use the account to pay for 
tuition in a private school. Some parents will do that, and that is the 
rub.
  That is the reason the President said last year, ``I'll veto the tax 
bill if this idea is in it.'' That is the reason, when we brought this 
bill to the floor last year, the other side filibustered it. And that 
is the reason we cannot even get to this bill today, because the other 
side is filibustering it, because some handful of families, using their 
own money, would make a decision that they need to put their child in a 
different school.
  And, Heaven forbid, Washington has to stand in their way with a 
roadblock, a filibuster. By trying to keep those few families, whoever 
they would be, from doing that, they would snatch $2.5 billion out of 
helping children in public schools, they would snatch $2.5 billion away 
from families trying to help their children in private or home schools.
  They would cause 14 million savings accounts never to open. They 
would deny all those corporations that could contribute to the 
accounts, all those parents and grandparents, all the matching ideas 
that would participate in these accounts, they would disallow it, stop 
it.
  Millions of families will be denied, 20 million-plus children will 
not have the benefit of this redirection of family resources, thousands 
of public school teachers will not become tutors, hundreds of thousands 
of home computers will not show up in the home, inner city schools 
where they only have 15 percent of the population with home computers 
will stay 15 percent instead of going up because we have generated a 
pool of money to buy those computers. And they will have done it in the 
name of keeping a handful of families from making a decision that they 
want to move from one school to another.
  That, Mr. President, is what this filibuster is all about. It is 
outrageous. Unbelievably, unfortunately, if they are ultimately 
successful, the mountains of good where everybody succeeds and wins 
will be packed away in some closet on some shelf over that thread of 
concern. It shows you, Mr. President, the depth of despair of the 
status quo, that they would come to this point and deny all that good 
over that single point.


                      Motion To Proceed Withdrawn

  Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion to proceed to H.R. 2646.

                          ____________________