[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 29 (Tuesday, March 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2086-S2094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is an enormous amount of rhetoric
today at many different levels of Government about education. There is
also a lot of good, genuine effort in many States, literally, as well
as here at the national level, to try to address some of the very real
questions about education.
What is clear to me, though, and I think to other Members, is that
there is still an enormous gap between the reality of what is happening
in many of our schools and those things we are choosing to do at the
national level. It seems clear to almost everybody who talks about
education that nothing is more important than providing the children of
America a system with opportunity that is second to nobody in the
world. But as the test scores and other aspects of our education system
are indicating, we really lag way behind the full measure of the
ability that we have as a country to do that. We are failing too many
of our children today. We have too many crumbling schools. We have too
many overcrowded classrooms. We have too many
[[Page S2087]]
inadequately prepared teachers. And, regrettably, the bill on which we
will be voting on a motion to proceed later this morning, while I think
it has good intentions and even some good components that, if they were
part of a larger effort, might make sense, simply does not do anything
to address the fundamental problems that we have in the
country. Perhaps I should amend that. I guess it is not fair to say it
doesn't do anything. It certainly puts money in the hands of a certain
group of people, and for them there is a benefit. So you cannot say it
doesn't do anything. But the question you have to ask is, is that the
first place we ought to begin with some kind of Band-Aid solution to a
much larger problem? And is that the solution that the U.S. Senate
ought to adopt in a free-standing effort?
I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that as legitimate as the
fundamental concept of some kind of savings account might be, this
particular bill, this particular set-aside, this particular savings
account, does an injustice to the rest of the education needs of the
country, and it also serves those people who are already doing pretty
well and not those in need or for whom there is a much more serious set
of remedies needed. In many ways what the Senator from Georgia is
proposing could wind up inadvertently making things far worse for the
overall educational system.
I want to make it clear, and I will be trying to do this more and
more in the next weeks, that I think there are some enormous
fundamental flaws in the educational system of the country.
Notwithstanding 20 years of discussions in various national fora that
have brought the governments together with Presidents and otherwise,
and notwithstanding all of the outside reports that have been
commissioned with respect to our education system, the truth is that
today the system continues to implode, almost.
Also, notwithstanding the remarkable efforts of individual teachers
and individual schools, the fact is there are more and more poor young
people in America, there are more and more pressures on the education
system, and there are more and more difficulties that teachers need to
deal with and principals need to deal with, particularly in inner
cities and also in some rural areas. Our schools are attempting to do
what no other school system on the face of the planet attempts to do,
which is to bring so many different people of different languages and
different cultures and different races together under one roof, too
often with total inadequacy of resources and structure.
I don't think it's that hard, frankly, to analyze what is wrong. What
appears to be hard is the building of a consensus, a coalition that is
willing to tackle the things that we know are wrong. I will also be
saying a lot more about that in the days ahead.
But the problem with the Coverdell bill is what we really need is an
overall approach that deals with the problems where 90 percent of our
children are being educated. Mr. President, 90 percent of America's
children are in the public school system. What we are witnessing in the
Coverdell bill is an approach that drains away from that 90 percent a
certain amount of the existing support and permits those people who get
the benefit of the money that is drained away to be able to do what
they want with it. That is a very nice idea. I do not object, as I say,
in principle, to allowing people to have choice within the education
system, and also to have some choices about the quality of where they
are going to send their kids to school. But the Coverdell bill expands
the tax-free education savings accounts to a level, $2,000 a year,
replacing the current $500 cap, which would also expand the allowable
use of those funds for education expenses for public, private, and
religious schools, which obviously raises another subset of questions.
But the great majority of families--and here is the most important
point--the great majority of families would get little or no tax break
from this legislation.
We have to ask ourselves some tough questions as we make some choices
here in the Senate and in the budget process about where we spend our
money. I do not think it's that tough a choice to ask what is the
justification for providing 70 percent of the benefits of this effort
to families in the top 20 percent of income in America? I do not
understand that. We know we are creating more poor people. We know the
public schools that are hurting the most are the public schools where
there is the least amount of property tax base. We know the public
schools that are hurting are schools where they do not have enough
money to pay teachers enough or they do not have enough money to put
the computers in or enough money to fix roofs that are leaking or to
have air-conditioning so kids have a decent environment to learn in, or
even to have some of the important programs that ought to be part of
learning--whether it's sports or music or a new science laboratory or
art. These are all things that have been cut in recent years, and
predominantly cut in those school districts that cannot afford to keep
them because they do not have the tax base.
So what are we doing? We are going to talk about turning around and
giving 70 percent of revenue that we are going to give up, $1.6 billion
we are going to give up, in order that people in the top 20 percent of
income-earners in America can do better. When you are asking Americans
to tighten their belts, and you are asking Americans to come together
around notions of fundamental fairness, it is pretty hard to say to
them that in the midst of some of the chaos that we see in the public
education system, the first thing we are going to do is turn around and
allow the people who are doing the best in America to take the most
amount of money from our first effort.
The fact is people earning less than $50,000 would get an average tax
cut of only $2.50 from this legislation. How do you justify that? There
is not a Senator here who does not come to the floor at one time or
another and talk about the problems of youth in America, the problems
of illegitimacy, of births out of wedlock, the problems of kids who
have no place to go after school, of kids who wind up smoking
cigarettes or doing drugs and getting into trouble. We spend billions
of dollars every year in order to address those after the fact, and
here we are about to consider a piece of legislation that suggests that
we ought to take the money out of the current expenditure that we put
in the Federal level and give it to people who are earning the most
money in America, a $1.6 billion price tag over the next 10 years.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has found that half of the benefits
would go to the 7 percent of families with children in private
schools--half of the benefits of the $1.6 billion will go to the
children and their families who are already in private schools. You
know, it's one thing to criticize our public schools; it's another to
suggest that they are responsible for their own faults when they depend
upon the public dollar. If we take the public dollar away from them and
then we turn around and just criticize them, it seems to me we are
building the capacity for failure into the system.
As I said before the Senator who proposed this came to the floor, I
think there are merits in the concept of a savings program. I am
perfectly happy to embrace a legitimate effort to create a private
savings capacity to encourage people to be able to put money away to
send their kids to school. That is a legitimate goal. But surely we
have the ability to do it in a way that spreads the benefit more evenly
across the need in this country. You simply cannot ignore as the
country has been getting richer and richer in the last 10 or 15 years,
we have more and more poor people, particularly poor children. The
number of poor children in America is going up, as is the number of
children in need within our inner cities who deserve equally as good an
opportunity at a decent school as the kids of these other parents, and
they ought to get one. So I am perfectly prepared to embrace the
concept, but I want to do it in a way that is part of an overall effort
that suggests that we understand the larger question of what our public
education system needs.
We Democrats would like to be able to propose a substitute and some
alternatives that would help the vast majority of working families. Our
bill would provide tax credits to subsidize school modernization bonds
to enable States and local public school districts to provide safe and
modern schools that are well-equipped in order to provide students with
educations for the 21st century. One-half of the funds in our bill
would be targeted to schools with the
[[Page S2088]]
greatest number of low-income children, and States would be permitted
to decide where to distribute the remaining half of those funds. Our
bill would help more than 5,000 schools modernize so we can reduce
class size and provide a safer environment.
Let's be honest. It is not hard to figure out why so many parents are
looking for an alternative to some of the public schools. I am a
parent. I have two kids who we chose, ultimately, not to send to a
public school because we did not have confidence, as a lot of parents
do not, for one reason or another. I regret that. I actually moved
where I moved with the hopes that we would send them to the public
school system.
You know, all of us are faced with this choice. Probably too many of
us in the U.S. Senate who have had kids have opted for something else,
and we have been able to do that. That, frankly, increases the burden
on us, not decreases it. It increases the burden on us to understand
what most American parents are thinking as they make choices about
their kids.
So, today, people are voting with their feet. They are voting with
their feet. They want vouchers; they want charter schools; they are
even opting for home teaching.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Just a logistical matter?
Mr. KERRY. Absolutely. I suggested I would wrap up quickly when
Senators came to the floor, and I will do that right now.
What I am saying is it is obvious to me and many others that you
cannot go on with the current model of what is happening in our public
school system. It is absolutely clear to me that we need greater
accountability. In many States people are working to do that through
testing, through standards, through teacher standards, new
qualifications--a whole set of things that I, again, will talk about at
another time.
The bottom line is that you cannot come here and not recognize that
there is no way, even if you embrace charter schools, that you could
create enough charter schools fast enough to save a generation. The
fact is that 90 percent of our kids are in a system that provided the
generation that brought us through World War I and World War II, that
created the greatness of this country during the course of this
century. I can take Senators to any number of schools, as they could go
to in their own States, that are wonderful public schools, that work.
They work because they have great principals, great teachers, great
resources, and a great commitment from parents. And they are
accountable. Then we can go to pure disasters in other parts of all of
our States.
What we ought to do is come to the floor with a responsible effort
that tries to address how we are going to provide the structure and the
resources to deal with the problem schools while not pulling the rug
out from under those schools that work. That is why I think it is so
important to look for an alternative, or at least work out some kind of
compromise to what the Senator from Georgia is proposing.
I thank my colleague for his courtesy, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Georgia.
Let me say to the Senator, under the previous order the Senator now
has 1 hour, even though it will extend beyond 12 clock.
Mr. COVERDELL. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I do want to point
out with regard to the remarks made by the good Senator from
Massachusetts, that what we are debating here theoretically is not even
the merits of the legislation. The other side is filibustering. This is
an outrageous filibuster that is designed to prohibit us from ever
getting to the legislation. The other side has organized. The motion
being debated is the motion made by the majority leader to bring the
bill to the floor, and the other side is filibustering that. The
comments that the Senator from Massachusetts made about their version
and wanting to have an opportunity to discuss it and debate it is
blocked, not by us, but by their filibuster. In fact, in the original
unanimous consent request, the majority leader offered the other side
an opportunity to bring their version to the floor as a substitute or
as an amendment and we would have a full and open debate about the
merits of these proposals. So it is important that everybody
understand. This is a little bit disingenuous because the other side is
trying to keep us from even getting to the legislation. It is the
ultimate example of defense of the status quo.
The Senator from Massachusetts took issue with the status quo. But we
cannot deal with the status quo, or improve it--whether it is their
version or ours--if they will continue to disallow our ability to bring
the legislation to the floor.
The Senator referred to one component of our proposal, an education
savings account, for which any family is eligible, that somehow in
their mind, or in his mind, was not attentive enough to the poor. I
want to point out to the Senator and to the other side that the
criterion by which our savings account is created is identical. I
repeat: It is identical to the savings account that the President
signed, with a great celebration and fanfare at the White House a year
ago, or last fall, for a savings account for just higher education.
That savings account allowed a family to save $500 a year, just as
ours, and it works identically to our account. So the criteria that was
designed for the savings account that was signed into law last year is
designed to push the vast resources of these savings accounts to people
of middle income and lower.
Seventy percent of all the proceeds in all these savings accounts
will go to families earning $75,000 or less. But the important point is
that the governance rules of these savings accounts are the exact same
rules that the other side embraced last fall in the tax relief proposal
and that the President signed. There is no difference. That proposal
was designed to make the account work toward middle class; this one is
designed to accomplish the very same thing. So it is a smoke-screen
issue to suggest that somehow the governance of this education savings
account favors people of substantive means when the other one didn't
and when they are identical, absolutely identical.
The only thing that is changed is that we have said that instead of
$500 a year, you can save up to $2,000, and instead of it just applying
to college needs, it should be eligible for kindergarten through high
school. It seems pretty logical to just expand the usage of it. I will
come back to what I consider deflecting arguments from what the real
problem is on the other side a little bit later.
I yield up to 10 minutes to my good colleague from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of the cloture
vote to proceed. The vote will take place in about an hour.
What is the answer to the basic question of why should we proceed?
The answer is for our children. We can no longer defend the status quo.
The Coverdell Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act is our next
step in improving education for our children for the next generation. I
will just point out that it builds on the new education IRAs from the
Taxpayer Relief Act, which were directed to higher education. Senator
Coverdell's proposal focuses on primary and secondary education.
Why is that important? The answer is that no longer is the status quo
defensible in American education. I want to take a few minutes to share
why I say that.
Over the last 6 months, I have had the opportunity to chair the
Senate Budget Committee's Task Force on Education. In our hearings--a
series of six hearings over the last 6 months--I have discovered
several things: The current Federal establishment is so complex that it
is difficult for even somebody from Government to come forward and say
how many programs we have at the Federal level for education. I have
learned that we have committed as a nation, as a people, as a U.S.
Congress, substantial and growing resources to secondary and elementary
education, but we have few proven good results to show for it. Our
student performance is essentially flat over time. According to
Secretary Riley, some of our schools ``don't deserve to be called
schools.''
I have a few charts which depict why I say that we are not doing
enough, and why we cannot defend the status quo.
[[Page S2089]]
The first question we might ask is, are we as a nation, as a society,
spending enough money today, putting enough resources into primary and
secondary education? That is a fairly subjective question to ask. What
we can answer is, are we spending increasing amounts over time? And the
answer to that is yes.
This first chart shows current expenditures per pupil in average
daily attendance in public elementary and secondary schools. It goes
from 1970 up to the current 1997 years. If you look at the green line
in current dollars, it has gone from approximately $1,000 per pupil up
to over $6,000 per pupil. If you apply that same curve to constant
1996-1997 dollars adjusting for inflation, we have gone from about
$3,600 per pupil up to over $6,000, a 50-percent increase. Thus, over
time, per pupil in today's dollars, we have increased spending about 50
percent per pupil.
That, I believe, reflects what actually is being discussed in the
Budget Committee as we speak--where we are going to increase spending
more per pupil, a willingness, a commitment on the part of the Congress
and the American people to spend more, to put more resources in
education.
I should point out that in 1997, we spent $36.6 billion on elementary
and secondary education. It is important to note that the Federal
spending of that amount is only about 7 percent. States and localities
provide the rest.
A second question is, what is the Federal role in primary and
secondary education? We asked that question. I will put up a fairly
large chart that is very complicated. In our own office, we call this
the ``spider web'' chart. This is the chart that was produced by the
General Accounting Office (GAO). GAO brought this chart to us to
explain to us the Federal role in primary and secondary education.
GAO basically took three areas--one is teachers, one is at-risk and
delinquent youth and one is young children--to demonstrate the
overlapping complexity. In fact, GAO's testimony that day was entitled
``Multiple Programs and Lack of Data Raise Efficiency and Effectiveness
Concerns.'' That title really describes this chart very well.
If we take one of these populations--the at-risk and delinquent
youth, we can see, using this one example that there are 59 programs at
the Department of Health and Human Services that are directed at this
group; 7 are administered by the Department of Defense; 8 by the
Department of Education; 4 by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development; 9 by the Department of Labor; 22 by the Department of
Justice; 3 by the Department of the Interior; 7 by the Department of
Agriculture; 3 by the Department of Energy; 1 by the Department of
Treasury; and 18 by various other agencies.
This chart around the border shows that there are 23 Federal
departments and agencies administering these multiple Federal programs
to just these three targeted groups. Again, it is unimportant to figure
out right now for the purposes of our discussion today what each of
these programs are doing. The point is, it is very complicated with a
lot of overlap. Is there room for streamlining and simplification and
innovation? I think yes.
Third question: With this bureaucracy and with this increased
spending over time, how are we as a nation doing? What have our results
been?
Just 3 weeks ago, on February 24, the last battery of TIMSS, which is
the Third International Math and Science Study, was released. This test
measures the achievement of students at the end of their last year in
secondary school, that is the 12th grade in the United States. These
latest trends reflect the downward trend in America vis-a-vis our
international competition, our international counterparts.
I will go through several charts very quickly that summarize and
demonstrate what Dr. Pat Forgione, the Commissioner of the National
Center for Education Statistics, stated in his press release on the
results. Let me quote him:
Our most significant finding is that U.S. 12th grade
students do not do well. When our graduating seniors are
compared to the students graduating secondary school in other
countries, our students rank near the bottom. This holds true
in both science and math, and for both our typical and our
top level students.
Secretary Riley said, ``These results are entirely unacceptable.''
This first chart shows in the field of general science knowledge
where we as a nation stand. The scores are in the columns on the right.
All of these countries on the left are nations with average scores
significantly higher than the United States. The United States is in
the second lower category. There were only two nations tested who did
significantly worse than the United States in the general science
knowledge.
You can see all the countries that did better: Sweden, the
Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Australia.
This portion of the test measures skills ``necessary for citizens in
their daily life.'' We are right at the bottom.
Our next chart shows mathematics general knowledge achievement. The
layout is the same. On the left are the countries which did better than
the United States. We are at a level of 461. The average for all
countries tested was 500. We are significantly below the average.
Again, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway,
in terms of mathematics general knowledge do better than the United
States. Again, this is measuring what citizens need to know in daily
life. Only two countries did worse than us, Cypress and South Africa.
Some people say, ``That may be true, but is it a dumbing down or does
our lower level pull the median down?'' To answer that question,
unfortunately, I turn to the next chart. We look just at advanced
science students, just our very best compared to the very best in other
countries to answer that fundamental question of whether or not the
bottom rung brings our median down.
For a long time, we thought our very best were better than the very
best from other countries. Unfortunately, it is just not true. Again,
the layout is just the same. These are nations with average scores
higher than the United States. This is the average physics performance
of the advanced science students. Again, you can see that we are at the
bottom of the rung of the ladder. In fact, there are no nations--no
nations--that did worse than our best students in this competition.
Clearly, we are doing poorly when we compare ourselves
internationally. But then let's go back and say, ``Well, are we doing
better than we did 20 years ago?''
We see we are spending 50 percent more per pupil. Are we doing
better? Is the payout for our investment real? What is the return?
Unfortunately, this next chart, again 1970 to 1996, shows the data.
In spite of increased spending and lower class sizes, the trends are
completely flat. The red is 9-year-olds, the blue is 13-year-olds, the
green is 17-year-olds. These are the trends in reading on this first
chart.
The bottom line is that we have seen no improvement whatsoever in the
last 20 years. The next chart shows in the field of science, once
again, the average science scale scores for our Nation over time in
control testing is completely flat--flat line, very little return on
our investment.
I think this argues that we can't defend the status quo. We can't
have bills filibustered which are innovative, which are creative, which
inject that creativity and innovation in our system today, because the
status quo is simply unacceptable.
Access has improved over time. In 1900, only 6 percent of American
students graduated from high school. In 1967, 50 percent of the
population finished high school. Today, completing high school is
nearly a universal phenomenon with 94 percent of America's youth
completing high school, although many not on time. So access has
greatly improved; quality has not improved.
The Coverdell Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act is not the
cure-all. We recognize it is not the cure-all, but it is our next step
in improving education in this country. It empowers the parent-child
team, it encourages savings for education, it recognizes that the
status quo is not sufficient in preparing our children for the future,
and it encourages innovation and new ideas.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to allow this bill to come to the
floor to be debated and voted upon. I urge its
[[Page S2090]]
support and look forward to defending this bill as our next best step
in reforming education in our country.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Tennessee. I
think in a very brief period, he has demonstrated what all of us are so
worried about; that we have been making greater and greater investments
financially, particularly in grades kindergarten through high school,
and we are not seeing the kind of results from it we need to see. We
have all known that you have to have an educated society to maintain a
free country.
On a personal basis, all those numbers on all of those charts of the
Senator from Tennessee--which I would like a copy of--at the end of the
tunnel what they point to, in all too many cases, is that a child can
get out of our school system and not be ready to take care of
themselves in society. They will have trouble getting a job, they will
have trouble thinking through the kind of problems they have to solve,
and they will be a diminished citizen. They are not going to be able to
enjoy the opportunities and privileges that go with American
citizenship. That is what all those numbers mean at the end. Thousands
of people across our country are denied the benefits of American
citizenship because they don't have the tools to engage our society.
I think I will take a moment, if I may, Mr. President, to remind
everybody that we are in the midst of a debate over whether or not the
other side will allow us to bring our proposal for improving families
and their children's education, for improving education and grades
kindergarten through high school and beyond. We are trying to get our
proposal to the floor. That proposal is being filibustered on the other
side. We are going to have a vote at 12:15 today to see if we can get
60 Senators who will agree that we need to get this legislation to the
floor.
Let me take a moment, if I might, Mr. President, and describe the
legislation that we want to bring to the floor today. The first
provision is an education savings account. This is the provision that
has caused the most discussion. Currently, last year in the Tax Relief
Act, we adopted an education savings account. It was for $500. In other
words, $500 per year can be put in the savings account and the interest
buildup will be tax free if the proceeds are used for college expenses.
It was designed by means testing to assure that the principal benefits
went to middle income or lower.
Our proposal is to take the savings account that was passed
overwhelmingly, that was signed by the President, and say you can
invest more than $500; you can save up to $2,000 per year. So we have
increased it by $1,500. Then we said, Why limit it to just financial
needs that confront a family with a student in college? Why not make it
possible for the family to use that savings account at any period in
their education--kindergarten through college? And we applied the same
constraints to that account. Everything about it is the same. So it is
a pretty simple proposition. We took the savings account, you can put
more in it, and you can use it kindergarten through college.
Interestingly enough, the amount of money that we will be leaving in
family checking accounts through this instrument is not a lot of money
in terms of a $1.6 trillion budget. It is about $750 million that would
be left in these checking accounts over 5 years. What is interesting
is, that small amount of relief, according to the Joint Tax Committee,
multiplies itself by about 15 times--that families across the country,
somewhere between 10 million and 14 million, who will use this
opportunity, who will open this account, will save in the first 4 years
about $5 billion. In over 8 years, they will save between $10 and $12
billion. So we are taking a very small amount of tax relief incentive
and it causes American families to do something we all think they
should do--save. And they are going to save billions of dollars.
What can they use the accounts for? They can use them for any
educational need. I call these billions of dollars ``smart dollars''
because the guidance system is right in the household; it is the
parent, who understands most what the child's needs are. They may
decide this child has a math deficiency, so they would use the account
to hire a tutor. Or they may be one of the 85 percent of the families
in the inner city who don't have a home computer; they would use the
account to help that child's education by acquiring a home computer.
They may have a physical impairment or a special education need, and
they could use the account to hire a special ed teacher to deal with
whatever the problem would be.
There are no losers in this proposition. A lot of legislative
proposals we see here, somebody gains and somebody loses. Not in the
education savings account. Whether the child is in a rural school, an
urban school, a fairly wealthy school district, or a very poor school
district, everybody benefits. Whether the child is in public education,
where 70 percent of the families who use these accounts will be
supporting children in public schools, or 30 percent will be supporting
children that are in private schools or home schools, there is no
component of education that will not be the beneficiary of the savings
account.
A little earlier, the Senator from Massachusetts was admonishing the
fact that the Joint Tax Committee says about half the money that
parents use--remember, it is their money--that these billions of
dollars that are being saved are private dollars; they are not tax
dollars. About half of that will go to support students in private
schools, and about half will go to support children in public schools.
I guess the Senator takes exception to that.
What that means at the end of the day is, in the first 4 years, $2.5
billion will be out there supporting children in private schools and
about $2.5 billion will be out there supporting children in public
schools. It will be families, but there will be a tendency to save a
little less, because a family in a public school does not have to deal
with tuition. I assume the Joint Tax Committee is acknowledging that
families with children in private schools have bigger bills to pay
because they have to pay the public school costs through their property
tax, and they have to add the private school on top of it, so they will
probably save a little more and they will spend it sooner.
The thing that the Joint Tax Committee does not do is estimate what
happens if the families kept it through college. They have only
estimated the division of money kindergarten through high school, and
they also have not calculated a huge benefit that this savings account
creates because it allows sponsors to contribute to the account. This
makes it unique. What do you mean, ``sponsors?'' Well, an employer
could help his or her employees by depositing funds in the employee's
savings account for education. A church could. A grandparent could give
a child a deposit in a savings account instead of a toy that will
probably be ignored in 24 hours. This might change birthdays
dramatically as parents, friends, uncles, and aunts try to figure out
what kind of gift and find that a deposit in that child's savings
account would be a great gift and have a lasting beneficial effect.
That hasn't been indicated in the Joint Tax Committee's work. It will
alter dramatically what the final outcome is of the distribution.
Say it all ended up exactly where they said. Why would anybody oppose
infusing billions of new dollars behind children in private schools and
billions of new dollars behind children in public schools? Why in the
world would that be a reason to be upset about? It is mind boggling
that a savings account that families open with their own money--not
public money, their own money--from which some 10 to 14 million
families will benefit, some 20 million children, and we would have this
strident filibuster in opposition to it. Pretty mind boggling.
There are other provisions of the proposal. I will go over them
briefly. It helps qualified State tuition provisions. In a number of
States--21 of them, to be specific--States allow parents to purchase a
contract that locks in their tuition costs for college in the future at
today's prices. This proposal would allow those proceeds to come out
tax free to the student. Twenty-one States would be immediate
beneficiaries, or the citizens of those
[[Page S2091]]
States. In fact, this is one of the most costly provisions of the
proposal. There are other States that currently are considering this
provision, but this would help parents and States who are trying to
help parents set up these advance tuition payment systems.
The proposal would aid employer-provided educational assistance. This
legislation extends the exclusion for employers who pay their
employees' tuition through 2002 and expands it to include graduate
students, beginning in 1998. This allows employers who pay up to $5,250
per year for educational expenses to benefit their employees, without
the employee having to claim it as income and pay taxes on it. So every
company across our land has an incentive to help their employees update
and improve their education--once again, a very sound proposal that has
a broad reach across our country.
Briefly, there are two other major provisions that deal with helping
small school districts get revenue bonds to help build schools, and
there is some defining language that helps make HEALTHY, the national
health care scholarships--these five provisions are at the center of
our proposal that we are trying to get to the floor for a debate.
I want to reiterate, relating to the comment from the Senator from
Massachusetts, we have been agreeable to the other side bringing to the
floor their provision and debating it. What we are trying to do is get
the legislation on the floor. We have been joined by my cosponsor on
the other side of the aisle, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey,
who has been tireless in his effort to promote particularly the
education savings account among the adversaries on the other side. I
have been particularly appreciative of his work and courage in helping
us with this educational innovation. He has been tireless. His
intellect has been superior. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator
from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey
for yielding me the time and, more than that, for his leadership,
tirelessly, month after month, in bringing this issue of savings
accounts to the Senate and now, I believe, to acceptance.
I have noted in the debate to date, Senators have offered a
perspective that they have other ideas that would enhance educational
quality in our country.
People believe they may have better ideas. People have other
suggestions and approaches. In large measure, they all have merit.
Neither Senator Coverdell nor I argue that this is exclusively the only
approach in improving educational quality in our country. But it is an
idea and it is a worthwhile idea. Critics are right that the country
also must, as the President has suggested, rebuild America's schools.
We need additional teachers, we need to reduce class size, and I
believe we need to do voluntary testing. The President's proposals and
those of our Democratic and Republican colleagues all have merit. A+
savings accounts are not designed to replace those ideas, and they are
not instead of other suggestions. But this is a beginning, and it is an
important beginning.
A+ savings accounts, under Coverdell-Torricelli, will bring $12
billion of new educational resources for the classrooms of America, in
public and private schools. It is not a diversion of current public
resources, as might be the case with vouchers. These are new resources.
It isn't Government money at all. These are the funds of private
American families who are given a new avenue to use their own money to
enhance the quality of public or private education. It is resources
where we need them the most. It is estimated that 75 percent of all of
these resources through educational savings accounts will go to
families who earn $70,000 per year or less--families who are struggling
the most to provide their children with quality education. Yet,
Senators will come to the floor and argue that this money continues to
go to a privileged few. What privileged few in America earn $50,000,
$60,000 or $70,000 a year and pay the tuition or the ancillary cost of
public education on one, two, or three children?
Other Senators will argue that the money should be going exclusively
to public schools. Well, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation,
it's estimated that 70 percent of the actual funds placed in these
savings accounts will go to public school students because not only are
these resources available for private tuition at parochial schools,
yeshivas, and other private institutions, they are also available for
the ancillary cost of public education. What parent in America today,
recognizing how students are struggling with advanced science, new
math, the more complexities of rising educational standards that we are
trying to impose on America's schools from our school boards and local
governments, does not recognize that this complexity requires
additional instruction? Educational savings accounts are the only means
that we are offering American families, through any program, to hire
tutors, to get teachers after school, pay them additional resources to
get their time to help American students compete and to learn.
It is the only program designed by anyone that I know to deal with
the fact that even some of our best public schools are canceling after-
school activities, after-school transportation, extracurricular
activities, which are such a vital part of American education. These
savings accounts will make this money available to pay for those
activities.
I believe that A+ savings accounts can be the beginning of a
revolution in American education, where Senators will succeed in coming
to the floor, as the President has suggested, and offering legislation
to rebuild our schools, where others will succeed in ensuring that
there is voluntary testing that will renew the standards and quality of
American instruction. A+ savings accounts could be the beginning of
that revolution in American education.
We offer this to supplant no other idea, as a replacement for no
other initiative, but that it stand on its own merits. At a time when
American families are struggling to prepare their students for a new
generation, the difference between success or failure, a quality of
life or a struggle of life, can be simply defined by the quality of the
access to an education. Who here can argue that parents should not be
able to use their own resources, for which they work every day, to save
funds to help in a private or a public education?
I believe, Mr. President, that in the final analysis, as the years
pass and as we look back on this proposal, we will realize that we have
awaken in America a tremendous resource--because A+ savings accounts
would not only provide this opportunity to American families, but
something much larger--to get the American family involved again in the
process of education.
Imagine a system where on a child's birthday, or on Christmas, on
Easter, on any anniversary in our religious or civic calendars, aunts,
uncles, grandparents, would provide money as a gift to go into a
savings account to help a child with their public or private education.
We are inviting the extended American family back into the business of
education when for so long people believed that education was a problem
of the Government or, at best, a mother and father, but still believe
that they cared about these children who were their nieces, nephews, or
grandchildren. This is a vehicle to get involved. If that is true of
the extended family, it's true of others as well.
I have noted in this debate before the potential where labor unions
could go to the negotiating table and ask not just for health benefits,
or retirement, or pay increases, but ask every month in every paycheck
that $5, $10, or $50 be placed in a child's savings account as part of
a labor agreement; where corporations compete for labor in America not
just on wages but say to their employees, ``if you work for our
company, we will contribute to your savings account to help a child.''
The potential here is enormous. But it begins with a single step, and
that is to establish these accounts. I know many of my colleagues who
are still wondering about their position on this legislation have many
questions. I want you to consider this one, as well, because I
recognize that this proposal is controversial. Many of my colleagues
who have doubts about it stood on the Senate floor a year ago and
enthusiastically supported educational savings accounts--accounts to
help parents deal with the rising, and sometimes insurmountable, burden
of college tuition. It is believed that under this savings account
proposal we could
[[Page S2092]]
quadruple the amount of money available for college tuitions, because
every dollar placed in these savings accounts for public and private
secondary education can be rolled into a college savings account if not
used by the 12th grade. So if for no other reason you do not join us
today in Coverdell-Torricelli, but you believed last year in
educational savings accounts for college tuition, you should be joining
with us today.
Finally, Mr. President, I offer this: Of all the divisions in
American life, of race, or poverty, or opportunity, the one this
country cannot afford in the next century is to create a caste system
of knowledge. Yet, that threat is arising in America: two distinct
classes of American citizens, one that enjoys unlimited opportunity and
the other mired in the past, in poverty, without hope or opportunity.
That division is knowledge. Where parents do not feel the public school
can adequately prepare their child, they should have a private school
option.
I agree that we cannot afford, at a time when our public schools are
not adequately financed, to divert public resources. That is why I have
opposed vouchers. But this is another opportunity to provide that
private school option with a family's own money.
But ending this division of knowledge requires something else, too.
The classroom experience will never be enough in the next century to
prepare American students to compete in the world. It will never be
sufficient. That is what's exciting about these savings accounts, where
parents, after the regular school hours, can use tutors for extra
instruction, paid for with their own resources through these savings
accounts, and through the use of technology. Who in this Senate
believes that in the 21st century a student can genuinely compete and
prepare themselves in research, or computation, or writing, or word
processing, without a home computer and access to the Internet as a
research tool? I doubt that anybody here will make that case. Yet, 60
percent of American students will end the 20th century without a home
computer. Most frightening, 85 percent of all minority students will
never have that resource, under current financing. These home savings
accounts in the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal make funds available for
home use and the purchase of a computer. It is our greatest opportunity
to assure that this new divide in American life never occurs, that
access to knowledge will occur regardless of race or family income,
that opportunity is afforded across these lines of American life.
Finally, Mr. President, I hope that we can proceed on a bipartisan
basis. I regret that the judgment has been made that more amendments
will not be made available by many of my Democratic colleagues. By the
end of the day, we are still left with a proposal that stands on its
own merits and deserves the support of Senators, Democratic and
Republican.
Let us begin the great American initiative to confront the most
pressing problem in contemporary American life, which is the crisis of
quality in the American secondary schools. This is not an end to that
debate. It is not a definitive solution. But it is a beginning, to be
followed by many proposals of many Senators of both great political
parties. I hope we receive overwhelming support.
Again, I congratulate the Senator from Georgia for bringing this
before the Senate. I am very proud to offer it with him as his
coauthor. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge one of the most
eloquent statements we have heard about education savings accounts that
has just been given to us by Senator Torricelli. I particularly applaud
his reflection on the caste system that we are in danger of creating in
this country. It has been rewarding to me, and I know to the Senator
from New Jersey, that many of the leaders of these communities, from
Alveda King to Congressman Flake, really want these savings accounts
because they understand it could be a potential avenue and tool to
alleviate that caste system. I appreciate those remarks.
I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of public
education. Increasingly, more education is key to the American dream. I
would not support any legislation that I felt in any way undermines
this country's commitment to public education.
There have been a lot of myths and misinformation circulated about
the bill that the distinguished Senator from Georgia has taken such a
leadership role in drafting and bringing to the floor. I would like to
engage the Senator from Georgia in a colloquy in an attempt to put to
rest some of the misinformation that has been circulated about his
proposal.
First, I want to commend him for his leadership. I know that he is
sincerely committed to improving the quality of education in this
country. He has been a real leader on this issue, and it has been a
pleasure and a privilege to work with him. The Senator from Georgia and
I have had many conversations about this bill. I, too, had some
misinformation about it in the beginning, and the Senator from Georgia
was able to alleviate my concerns.
For the record, I would like to publicly ask some questions of the
Senator from Georgia so that everyone may have the benefit of this
information.
First, as the Senator from Georgia knows, I oppose vouchers because
they would divert needed funds from our public schools. I would ask the
Senator from Georgia, does this bill in any way divert money from local
school districts that would otherwise be used for public
education? Does this bill in any way authorize school vouchers?
Mr. COVERDELL. First of all, I thank the Senator from Maine for her
courtesy and her remarks. But specifically to her question, the answer
in both cases is no. Absolutely not. No local public school dollars are
diverted. As a matter of fact, as the Senator knows, if a family today
anywhere in America makes a decision to go to a private school, that is
over and above the fact that they continue to pay their property taxes
and their school taxes for the public education system. All of these
dollars are private dollars.
Ms. COLLINS. I very much appreciate the Senator from Georgia
clarifying that important point. Many of us may differ on the issue of
vouchers, but the fact is that this bill is not a bill to authorize
vouchers, despite some of the information circulated by the opponents
of the bill.
Mr. COVERDELL. That is correct.
Ms. COLLINS. Similarly, I ask the Senator from Georgia to clarify
that the money in these A+ accounts could be used in fact to assist
children that are attending public schools. I believe that is one of
the purposes of this bill. For example, am I correct in believing that
parents whose children attend public schools could use the money set
aside in these savings accounts to purchase a computer, for example, or
to hire a tutor to help their children, or perhaps to pay for a school
trip--again, all related to the public schools? Is my understanding
correct?
Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator from Maine is correct. In fact, my
assertion is that public school children attending public schools would
be the principal beneficiaries. Seventy percent, according to the Joint
Tax Committee, of families--that is about, incidentally, 7 to 10
million of them--will be families with children in public schools, and
about 30 percent will be families with children in private schools. The
division of the money is more equal. It is about 50-50, according to
the latest results. But those are not complete, because they only apply
to kindergarten through high school, and not through college. But,
specifically, families with children in public schools can use them,
and, in fact, more families with children in public schools will use
these accounts.
Ms. COLLINS. If I could expand on the point of the Senator from
Georgia, who has answered my final concern in this regard,
approximately 70 percent of the parents who would benefit from this
important legislation have children in public schools. Is that correct?
Mr. COVERDELL. That is correct, according to the Joint Tax Committee.
Ms. COLLINS. Finally, Mr. President, I want to clarify that it is my
understanding that if the money in these accounts is not used while the
child is in elementary school or secondary
[[Page S2093]]
school, that it can in fact be used for the very important purpose of
helping a family afford college costs or postsecondary costs. Am I
correct in my understanding?
Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator is absolutely correct; it is eligible for
use. My interest has been kindergarten through high school, as the
Senator knows, but the family can make its own choice. The accounts can
be used from kindergarten through college, and post college, if the
student is suffering from a disability and has an ongoing educational
requirement. So it is a full life of education as we know it in
America.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, contrary to the assertions of opponents
to this legislation, the fact is that it will bring more money to our
public schools, and it is a very pro-education pro-public-schools piece
of legislation that the Senator from Georgia has brought forth.
I thank the Senator from Georgia for his reassurances in this very
important matter. I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Maine. Again, I appreciate
the courtesy extended to those of us who have been framing the
legislation. I understand her interest in clarifying these points,
because there has been considerable misinformation. I will not go into
it at this point. But it is disappointing, considering the source.
These are sources involved with education, and you would think there
would be a particular integrity, that I have found absent, and I am
disappointed about it.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Wyoming is
recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from
Georgia for the opportunity to make a few comments, but more
particularly for the efforts that he has put forth and the leadership
that he has given in producing this bill to strengthen American
education.
I say again, as has been said before, that we must remember what the
purpose of this vote is, what the purpose of this effort is, and that
is to get it on the floor. This, of course, will never be resolved
until we come to some agreement as to how to get it on the floor and to
in fact consider it along with other kinds of issues.
Everyone is for strengthening education. I don't know of anyone who
would get up and say, ``No, I certainly don't want to do that.'' Of
course not. All of us want to do it. The question then is, How do we
best do it? How do we really approach the idea of strengthening
education and preserving those things that we think are fundamental to
education in this country? One of the real questions, of course, is the
degree and the extent of direct Federal involvement.
I was interested in the charts of the Senator from Tennessee this
morning that showed all of the different kinds of approaches that have
been taken at the Federal level--literally hundreds of programs that we
have now, which still only represent less than 7 percent of the total
expenditures in elementary and secondary education. Can you imagine the
amount of bureaucracy? Can you imagine the amount of expense prior to
that money getting to the ground?
So what we are really talking about here is a system to provide the
opportunity for families to be able to put together some money to use
as they choose and strengthen the local government.
The President, of course, has outlined the education issue largely
because it is an issue that everyone cares about--I have to say largely
because it is such a high winner in the polls. So the President, along
with the environment and other things, continues to mention education
but really doesn't have a plan for it. I guess that is part of the
system: You talk about education, sit back, and somebody else puts it
together. And then, of course, you claim victory because you have done
something for education. That is OK. We have seen that before.
The point is, How do we best strengthen education for all Americans?
How do we get better results? That is really what the bottom line is
about here. How do we maintain local control? Those are the issues. How
do we get more results for the expenditures that we put out? I am
persuaded that the approach taken by the Senator from Georgia--the idea
of keeping it at the local level, the idea of letting people be
responsible for saving and investing as they choose--is the real way to
do it.
The Senator from Massachusetts, of course, represents the legitimate
point of view that bigger government ought to have enormous direct
expenditures and, therefore, the controls that go with it in education.
I think that is not the case.
Basic changes: I get a lot of input into elementary education, and
secondary. My wife happens to be a high school teacher. One of the
things that is troublesome is the amount of time she spends on
paperwork. She is a special education teacher, and she spends half the
time on paperwork. We need to try to eliminate some of that. We need to
offer discipline; we need to raise expectations so that children are
really expected to do more; we need to have more accountability in
terms of production--much of this through management. Of course, we
need to provide more resources.
So, let me say to the Senator that I appreciate very much and admire
what he is doing and certainly hope we can get this bill on the floor.
And we should immediately.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for
his support and comments on our education proposal. I appreciate it
very much.
Mr. President, I thought in closing out this debate over whether or
not we can get to this legislation, or whether we will continue to be
filibustered, that it would be pretty interesting to compare two
approaches about helping American families. One is ours, which will be
in our budget, which we have just been talking about, which is an
education savings account which allows a family to save up to $2,000
per year for use for an educational purpose, kindergarten through
college. It is pretty straightforward. We just expanded the education
savings account that was passed and signed by the President last year.
In the President's budget, they are proposing a $2,000 solar tax
credit for ``photovoltaic systems''.
What are the uses of our savings account? After-school care; tutoring
for special needs kids; a computer for every schoolchild; and special
education. We have been talking about it all morning.
What would you use the solar tax credit for? Heating jacuzzis,
tanning beds, mood lighting, you name it.
Who are the beneficiaries of the education savings account? Middle-
and lower-income families; phased out for those making more than
$95,000 a year. As I said this morning in response to the Senator from
Massachusetts, this account is pointed toward middle-income families.
Seventy-percent-plus goes to families, $75,000 or less, just like the
savings account the President signed into law last year.
How about their plan? Well, the beneficiaries are wealthy people from
sunny States. There is no limitation on income levels. Every movie star
and rock star in the country could get this $2,000 tax credit to put a
solar panel on their roof.
The purpose of our account: Provide every child a better education;
help over 10 million and 14 million middle- and lower-income families.
What is their purpose? To combat global warming. The goal is to get
solar panels on 1 million rooftops by the year 2010.
As a matter of public policy, when we are having to make decisions
and hard choices, what do you really think America feels we need?
Education savings accounts for 10- to 15-million families and around 20
million children; that is, about half the school population? Or 1
million solar panels, which can only be used in sunny States, and with
no income means testing at all? Like I said, every rock star in America
can be a candidate for the administration's solar panel.
If that isn't a clear distinction of where we are setting our
priorities, I don't know what it is. The fact that we
[[Page S2094]]
have an administration that is arguing for 1 million solar panels and
filibustering a savings account for everyday families--not rock stars,
not wealthy folks--to set up a savings account to help their kids,
kindergarten through high school, I don't know what better
distinguishes our two objectives.
Mr. President, I have been very pleased with the bipartisan support
of Senator Torricelli, Senator Lieberman, Senator Breaux, and others,
and I hope we can end this filibuster and have a normal debate about
our views on how to help education. But I find this to be a very
telling comparison of our sets of priorities, with the filibustering of
the savings account for average American families. We are proposing a
$2,000 tax credit that anybody can take advantage of. And you know
exactly who is going to use that, and it is not going to be middle
America, is it?
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________