[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.

                          ____________________