[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 31 (Thursday, March 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2265-S2268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there is a clear, strong majority in the 
Senate who want to pass the Coverdell-Torricelli education savings 
account bill. It is bipartisan; I want to emphasize that. I believe 
every Republican is

[[Page S2266]]

going to be for ending the debate. They are not dragging this out and 
having a full-fledged filibuster. I think there are several Democrats 
who agree we should get to the substance, too, and I hope we are going 
to have a broad--and I believe we will--a majority will vote for this 
legislation when we get to final passage. And there is a reason for 
that.
  The legislation would benefit some 14 million families who could use 
the education savings accounts. I have said it before and I emphasize 
it again, I think one of the problems with elementary and secondary 
education in America today is there is no opportunity for financial 
assistance, no way to save your own money to help your children a 
little bit. It does not have to be $2,000 a year; it could be $200 a 
year or less. But that money then could be accumulated and get the tax 
benefits and then used to buy uniforms or books or computers or to 
choose another school.
  So I think this is a major step in the right direction in dealing 
with the problems of elementary and secondary education in America.
  This bill would help 1 million students with tax relief on their 
State prepaid-tuition plans. This is a good idea. We ought to allow 
people to be able to pay in advance for the impact of tuition when they 
go to college. This is something that is being advocated very 
aggressively by a number of Democrats as well as Republicans.
  This bill would benefit a million workers, including 250 graduate 
students, whose employers would be better able to provide education 
assistance for them. Shouldn't we encourage that? Shouldn't we 
encourage employers to help their good workers who want to better 
themselves to advance their education? Of course we should, and this 
would do that in the best possible way.
  Now, Mr. President, this day is day 6 of the delay and obstruction 
against getting this education reform. Is it all we need to do? No. Is 
it a major step in the right direction? You betcha. We ought to do 
this. And we should not keep delaying it and dragging it out.
  For 6 days some Members of this body have taken turns standing in the 
schoolhouse door barring the way to a quality education for children 
who, quite often, need it the most.
  I want to thank all the Senators who have been involved on both sides 
of the aisle who have been willing to put aside partisan considerations 
and do what is right for American families.
  It would also benefit hard-pressed localities that could build new 
public schools with the bill's $3 billion in tax-exempt private 
activity bonds. This is in there because of the continued efforts of 
Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Feinstein who worked on it, and 
Senator Coverdell who was for this. Some of us have some reservations 
about this. I am one of them. But if you think about it, if Disney 
World would like to help build another school in the Orlando area and 
this would help that happen, because in the public schools it might not 
happen, should we allow that opportunity through the taxing of bond 
activity? Maybe so. That is in this bill.
  In short, this is one of the most important pieces of consumer rights 
legislation that the Senate has considered since the establishment of 
the Food and Drug Administration, I believe. And it is being blocked 
systematically and cynically by those who do not want, apparently, 
middle-income or low-income families to have the same choice in 
education that is available to all wealthy families.
  My family did not have that option, couldn't afford it. I went to 
public schools all the way--proud of it. I think they did a good job. 
But I don't believe my kids got as good a public education as I did, 
and they went to public schools all the way, too. But I still think we 
should have other choices.
  I think it is ironic--no; maybe it is tragic that in the midst of 
this filibuster, of this delay, the administration is today boasting of 
its record on school violence, that we have safer schools. I do not 
know where they have been. The schools are the most dangerous in 
America today than they have ever been in history, probably.
  I mean, I used to worry about chewing gum in school. Now kids bring 
guns to school and shoot their classmates. You have to go through a 
metal detector to get into schools. Where are these programs that have 
been helping with that? I don't see them. But it is a curious gesture, 
to me, to wring your hands about the violence in classrooms while you 
block the exits so that children cannot escape from unsafe drug-ridden 
schools. That is what this would help do.
  I think it is just pretense, really, to deplore violence on the 
playground and in the school corridors while you force those endangered 
boys and girls to stay right where they are. And that is the fact of 
the opposition that we see to the Coverdell-Torricelli bill, because we 
are trying to give them some options. We are telling our children, oh, 
yeah, we want more classrooms and whatnot, but they have to stay in the 
back of the education bus and they have to stay in these dangerous 
schools.
  So if the classrooms are smaller, smaller classes, but still 
dangerous and infected with drugs, you are not getting a good quality 
education, and because the teacher can't pass a test himself. I do not 
think we have done what we need to do.
  Do we trust the parents or not? That is one of the questions here. I 
do not trust a Federal bureaucrat in Washington to make the right 
decision for the children in my hometown schools. I trust the parents 
and the teachers and the administrators at the local level to make the 
right decision for their children.
  So I think that this is something that we should bring to a 
conclusion. We need to find a way to get this bill considered, 
amendments to be offered. So I say here today--and we have just sent 
notification to the Democratic leader--that we wish to make a full 
effort once again to find a way to bring it to a conclusion so we can 
consider education and education needs and education amendments.

  I have another proposal. Keep in mind, last week I proposed that the 
Democrats should have a substitute bill, or could have, if they want to 
do it, and put anything they want to in it, debate it as long as they 
want to, and have a vote; and then we would go to the Coverdell-
Torricelli bill. Well, for good reasons, I presume, we could not get an 
agreement on a substitute.
  So then we said, well, what about if we have a couple of amendments 
on each side that are education related, and we have time to debate the 
amendments offered by Democrats, time to offer the two amendments 
offered by Republicans? That did not work and, once again, partially 
because there were more than two on each side; there were a number of 
them.
  Well, I have a new proposal. I have a way to bring us to a conclusion 
that I believe everybody would feel is fair and we could get a good 
debate on education. I understand that there are some 14 amendments 
that have been filed that relate to education--education. Five of them 
are Republican; nine of them are Democrat.
  Now, there are some others that have been filed that do not relate to 
education--clearly do not relate to education. So I propose here this 
afternoon that we say, OK, we are going to have agreement that those 14 
education amendments that have been filed can be offered, debated for 
an hour each, and voted on--five Republican, nine Democrat--but they 
have to be the education amendments; and then we go on to final passage 
based on whatever the condition of the package is at that point.
  Now, if we have to go to cloture--and when we get cloture --we still 
could have 30 hours of debate after that, and amendments would be 
offered or could be offered. We probably would take at least 14 or 15 
hours or more post-cloture. So I would like to--I am not asking for an 
answer now, but I am suggesting it to our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, and for the children of America, that maybe this is a way to 
make sure that Senators are able to offer amendments to education in 
addition to what is in this bill, and also to be able to offer ones 
that might not be germane post-cloture.
  This is a way to get it done. And we could set up a process of when 
we would begin on those amendments. We would have the 14 hours of 
debate, the votes would occur, and we could bring this to a conclusion, 
and I believe that instead of having a talkathon, we would have an A+ 
bill, a bill with input from Members on both sides of the aisle, a bill 
that would help education

[[Page S2267]]

in America. And I think the American people would say we have not just 
been talking about what we are going to do, but they would then see the 
truth, that we really do want to be a positive force in improving 
education in America and we found a way to do it.
  And it would add this additional benefit. It would allow us to bring 
it to a conclusion within a foreseeable period of time. It would allow 
us then to focus on having debates only on NATO enlargement, and get 
that to a focused debate and a focused conclusion, and then to go 
perhaps--even next week, if we could get all this lined up--to a vote 
on one or both of the supplemental appropriations bills.
  Now, that would be a week and a half of production that would stagger 
the minds of men, particularly when it comes to education. But we would 
have done education, we would have done NATO enlargement, and we would 
have done supplemental bills that will affect the defense of our 
country because of the funds for Bosnia and the Persian Gulf, for IMF, 
and for disasters. We could do all that in 1 week. I think it would be 
a monumental accomplishment. And I invite the Democratic leader to 
respond and to think about this offer, because I think it is a fair one 
that a lot of Senators would feel good about.
  With that, I would be glad to yield since I see Senator Daschle is 
here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President for his recognition.
  And I thank the majority leader for his innovative new offer. This 
comes as news. We have not had the opportunity to consider his new 
offer because this is the first time I have heard it. But, clearly, he 
is beginning to address the concern that Democrats have raised about 
the way in which this bill is going to be debated.
  None of us has proposed that somehow we want to keep from getting to 
final passage on this legislation. That isn't our objective. We have 
already noted the President is going to veto this bill, so we do not 
have to stop it from passing through the Senate. So that isn't our 
intent.
  Our intent all along has been simply to have a good debate, to offer 
our version of what we ought to be doing in education, to offer our 
version to suggest how we might spend one and a half billion dollars as 
we look at the array of challenges that we face.
  Now, the majority leader has proposed a plan that I have not yet had 
a chance to consider, but two questions arise immediately, and one is 
whether or not this proposal would allow us to deal with pre-
educational years; that is, the childhood development questions that we 
are facing as some of our amendments deal directly with early childhood 
development.
  We have not indicated to any of our colleagues that they had to file 
their amendments. Would we be then precluding some of our Democratic 
Senators who had no idea that somehow, if you had not filed, you would 
not be protected?
  And then of course there is the question of just an hour. Some 
amendments are going to take a little longer than an hour; some will 
not.
  So there are a lot of questions here that obviously we can work 
through, but to throw the gauntlet down, to say we are going to file a 
cloture motion to deny anybody the opportunity to offer amendments even 
though they are certainly related to education, has been our objection 
all along.
  So I certainly would like to work with the majority leader. The best 
way to do it is to vitiate the cloture vote so we can talk through 
this, rather than to insist on cloture and then negotiate, claiming to 
have some real interest in finding some resolution here. But I 
certainly applaud the majority leader for his approach, his 
constructive way in which he wants to find a way to deal with the 
schedule.
  I yield to my colleague from Delaware, who also has taken a great 
interest in this issue, for any comment that he might have.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if I may, I will be brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I, too, applaud the majority leader for this new offer. I 
am one who supports the Coverdell amendment. I am one of those folks 
who voted against vouchers, although I am entertaining whether or not I 
vote for a test project, as I view it, in the District. I have not made 
up my mind on that yet. But I clearly support the approach of my friend 
from Georgia.
  As a matter of fact, we had a little bit of a disagreement in our 
caucus over that issue on the substance. But there is one thing there 
is not any disagreement in our caucus about, and that is whether or 
not--and I suspect there would not be if the roles were reversed for 
the majority leader--whether or not we would sign on to--even those who 
support the Coverdell legislation--whether or not we would sign on to a 
position that would effectively require us to give up our rights to 
offer amendments, because although I am for this bill, it may be there 
would be a crime bill on the floor or there would be a foreign policy 
initiative on the floor that, once I agreed to give up that right 
procedurally, I would have put myself in the permanent minority and not 
being able to exercise the rights I have under the rules of the Senate. 
And I am absolutely confident the Senator from Mississippi would take 
the same position were he on the opposite side of the numbers at this 
time, the numbers being in the minority.
  But I, for one, believe that we should try to work out an overall 
arrangement relative to making sure we deal with education-related 
issues. I would--and far be it from me; I am not capable of being the 
leader of either one of the parties on this floor. But I would suggest 
that while the minority leader, the Democratic leader, is considering 
this, that the majority leader, the Republican leader, consider whether 
or not there is any benefit in trying to put a time limit on this now.
  Suggesting time limits on amendments is like waving red flags. I can 
name 10 Senators on your side, if I said that we are going to give 
their State an additional $70 billion but there will be a time limit on 
debate, they would automatically disagree. So I think there are sort of 
red flags.
  And far be it from me to get in the middle of this negotiation, but I 
compliment the Republican leader on what seems to be at least a slight 
change of approach in terms of what I think is an equitable way in 
which to deal on this floor. But people like me, who strongly support 
the Coverdell bill, absent something worked out like this--I must say 
to my friend from Georgia, I am with you, but I ain't with you when I 
have to give up my rights on everything else that comes down the pike-- 
as strongly as I support this.
  So I compliment, again, the Republican leader. I hope he and the 
Democratic leader can work this out, because I would like very much to 
get to this debate and get to voting on it. And, to be very selfish 
about it, I would also like to clear it out of the way so we can focus 
on NATO in a coherent way.
  I see the Presiding Officer shaking his head. He has a great interest 
in the NATO issue as well, I know. There are a number of Members who 
do. It would be nice to have a coherent, consistent debate on that 
issue, because it is of such consequence.
  I thank both leaders for allowing me to get into what is not usually 
something I speak to, and I appreciate their efforts.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to a couple things that 
the Senator from Delaware just said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. The timeframe is--you know, we do not have to lock into 
that. I just thought, since you are talking about 14 amendments here, 
that an hour probably would be enough. If we needed more on some of 
them, less on some others, we could work through that. But part of the 
reason why I was having hopes that we could, after about 20 hours or 
so, finish this up and then get to a focused-on debate on only NATO 
enlargement and get to a vote on that--that was part of the thinking. 
But the time could be flexible. Generally speaking, I think some of 
these amendments probably could be debated for less than an hour maybe.
  So you understand I will not ask this now, just so you can think 
about it, between now and when we get to the cloture vote I could ask 
consent notwithstanding rule XXII, regardless of the

[[Page S2268]]

outcome of the 5:15 votes, the following amendments be in order 
postcloture. One of the reasons that is also important, because some 
amendments might still be in order postcloture that would not be on 
this list, and that we would work on how much time we have on each 
amendment, and that there would be nine education-related amendments 
offered by the minority side, filed amendments 2020, 2026 through 2028, 
2031 through 2033, 2040 and 2041; and five education-related amendments 
offered by the majority side, 2021, 2022, 2024 through 2025, and 2035.
  That is a suggestion of a UC we could ask for, or if we could work 
out some other unanimous consent agreement on education-related 
amendments. I know the Senator was talking about maybe having a crime 
bill. I know when he is having a crime bill he would rather not have to 
deal with a fisheries' amendment. I understand the minority wants to 
make sure they are not precluded from offering amendments important to 
them. I think he also understands the majority has some rights and 
desires not to have to vote on amendments across the board, from one 
end of the spectrum to the other, when we are trying to get an 
education bill completed that is very important to education in America 
and children in America, so we could then get to a very important 
national policy issue, NATO enlargement, that I had the President call 
about just last night.
  I am looking for a way to be fair so we can consider education 
amendments and identify a way to bring it to an end.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BIDEN. I understand his desire but I don't understand his right. 
I understand the desire not to deal with all those amendments but I 
never thought that was a right--although it would be nice if it were a 
right--and while he is doing this, if he succeeds, if he could also 
clear the Helms-Biden foreign relations material of abortion amendments 
and declare them out of order as well. That is somehow stopped up.
  Mr. LOTT. I thought he agreed we would have that issue on the United 
Nations arrears, State Department reauthorization, instead of having it 
on the emergency bill or the IMF; wasn't that the discussion?
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator is of the view it shouldn't be on anything, so 
I hope when he settles this he can settle that too so we can fund the 
United Nations and have the IMF moneys, too.
  Mr. LOTT. I am sure we will work on that together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The distinguished 
Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I commend the Senator from Delaware for making a very 
important point. This is the U.S. Senate. I daresay there is not a 
Senator in this body who hasn't chosen to use a legislative vehicle for 
purposes of offering amendments that may not be germane. We all 
understand the germaneness rule.
  We all understand, many of us, why we left the House of 
Representatives to come to the U.S. Senate. We came to the U.S. Senate 
because we recognize the glory of the wisdom associated with the right 
of every Senator, and that is understood each and every time we come to 
the floor.
  The distinguished majority leader has made quite a point of citing 
the Coverdell bill as a bill related to education. It is also related 
to taxes. This is a tax bill, as well. This is a piece of legislation 
changing the Tax Code.
  Just so everybody understands what the majority leader is suggesting 
here, he is saying we don't want you to consider this a tax bill. The 
majority refuses to allow the minority to consider this a tax bill on 
the Senate floor. We want you to insist and promise that you will never 
offer a tax amendment on a tax bill that comes to the Senate floor. It 
is an education bill, so go ahead and offer an education amendment, but 
don't you dare offer a tax amendment to a tax bill. We are not going to 
allow that.

  Mr. President, I think that points out the fallacy of this whole 
matter and the reason why my distinguished colleague from Delaware made 
the point he did about the rights of the minority. How many tax bills 
will come to the Senate floor? How many opportunities will the minority 
have to offer legitimate, relevant, tax amendments?
  I am very concerned again about precluding the right of the minority. 
I was elected to represent 44 Democrats and their rights every time we 
come to the floor, regardless of the circumstance. I think all of our 
colleagues recognize the importance of protecting those rights. Whether 
it is tax, whether it is education, whether it is a matter related to 
something of great import to our colleagues, we have to protect that 
right. It doesn't matter the issue. What matters is the right. The 
right must be protected. That is really what these questions are all 
about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first, I know the minority leader will 
appreciate concerns on our side in the midst of the fourth filibuster 
over this. We already had to fight and break filibuster just to get to 
this point. The entire exercise on this legislation has related to one 
filibuster after the other, so obviously it has raised concerns that 
the amendment process will be used as another extension of the 
filibuster. I think that is a fair concern on our side.
  I have to say to the minority leader that even on your side I have 
heard numerous expressions that there should be a discipline about the 
education proposal and the debate should be about education, not broad 
tax policy. I have a tax relief bill that pushes millions of people 
into the 15 percent tax bracket. I have not introduced it here and 
won't. I don't think it should be. I think it should be an education 
debate.
  Now, the 9 Democrat amendments that have been offered that the leader 
is referring to, of the 14, 3 are tax, 6 are nontax, but they are all 
education related, which I think is appropriate. I do think there has 
to be some order. I think I even heard in some nature that context 
referred to by the Senator from Delaware, Minnesota and others on your 
side. There ought to be some discipline.
  I also say that while it is technically a tax bill, it is a 
minimalist tax bill. It is a large vehicle, a large vehicle.
  I think that there has been an extended effort to try to come to a 
meaningful balance between your side and our side on this measure. I 
pointed out yesterday that the legislation in our package was 80 
percent designed by your side of the aisle--Senator Graham of Florida, 
Senator Breaux of Louisiana, Senator Moynihan of New York and others. 
In the process of framing this, we tried to take the admonishment you 
gave last year, which was we wanted to go through the process, the 
Finance Committee. We have done that, heard from both sides. There is 
heavy influence from both sides. We are simply trying to find a way to 
get out of the filibuster, to get out of the fourth filibuster, and get 
down to a discussion about our different views on education.
  I hope this last offer or suggestion that has been outlined, that you 
are hearing for the first time, might be the genesis of coming to an 
agreement of how we can move on, in both of our mutual interests, on 
making the Federal Government a good partner in facing the calamity 
that we have all talked about over the last couple of years in 
kindergarten and through high school and the costs of higher education.
  I did want to make those points.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see several Members on the floor 
desiring to continue what I regard as a very good debate on NATO. The 
Senator from Michigan is present and I am perfectly willing to yield 
the floor should he desire to seek recognition. It would be my hope, 
Mr. President, that following the Senator from Michigan, the Senator 
from Virginia be recognized, and I make this unanimous consent request 
for the purpose of giving remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________