[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 33 (Monday, March 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2395-S2400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first, I will respond to the Senator 
from Minnesota. I appreciate his courtesy, his reflection on my passion 
for this legislation. I will, at least for his benefit and others, put 
a slightly different view on the analysis the Senator has presented.
  First, the Senator talked about a cost of $1.6 billion. Now, that is 
a 10-year period. Of course, it is leaving $1.6 billion in the checking 
accounts of 14 million American families. But what that fails to 
acknowledge is that that modest--modest --incentive generates over $10 
billion of assets, not tax dollars. These are volunteered assets of 
American families. So it becomes one of the largest single new sources 
of financial support for all education in recent times. It is a large, 
large number. It is not $1.6 billion, but we say, OK, we are not going 
to tax the interest buildup, so we will receive $1.6 billion less here 
in Washington. They will keep it in savings accounts. That will 
generate over $10 billion.

  The Senator from Minnesota has not, I believe, acknowledged that this 
proposal is now a very bipartisan proposal, and it is far more 
expansive than the savings account which I just described.
  The filibuster that we have been fighting since last July with the 
Presidential veto threat includes State prepaid tuition plans. It is 
about the same cost. Again, it is tax relief to families so they are 
not taxed when they come with prepaid tuition to a college. Twenty-one 
States now have it. And that was brought to us by Senator Breaux of 
Louisiana and Senator Graham of Florida.
  The Senator has not acknowledged the employer-provided educational 
assistance which expands tax exemptions for employers helping their 
employees continue to improve their education. This leaves almost $2.7 
billion of tax relief in these companies' checking accounts. But, of 
course, it affects over 1 million workers who would be able to have a 
better education because of it, and 250,000 graduate students, because 
they would be included for the first time. We owe Senator Moynihan of 
New York the gratitude for having put this proposal in the package that 
is being filibustered.
  There are a couple of minor provisions that I will not go into. But 
the other more significant one that has been brought forward is from 
Senator Graham of Florida who has devised an expanded financing tool 
for public school systems which would enable the construction of about 
500 new schools.
  So you have a very broad range. You have savings accounts effecting 
14 million families and 20 million children generating almost $10 
billion of new energy. You have $5 billion in new resources supporting 
public and private schools; $3 billion in new school construction; 1 
million workers receiving tax-free employer-provided education 
assistance; 1 million students receiving tax relief on State prepaid 
tuition plans.
  So, A, we have to look at it in a broader context--not just the 
savings account. And the other is that the vast majority of the 
proposal now has been proposed by the other side of the aisle.
  The Senator from Minnesota inferred that it is for public education. 
This is not for public education. That is just not the case. The 500 
new schools, public schools, 1 million workers, and 1 million students 
are all associated with public education. Half of all the proceeds 
coming out of the savings account, which in the first 5 years is $5 
billion, and then, as I said, $10 billion over 10 years--half of it, if 
you accept the very bare bottom analysis of the Joint Tax Committee, 
supports students in public schools. That is billions of dollars. And 
half of it supports children in private or home school. So it is a lot 
of money.
  The thing that is not clear to anybody right now, and for which we do 
not have numbers--we can only imagine--is that one of the unique 
features of the savings account is that a sponsor can be a contributor, 
a grandparent, an uncle, an aunt, a sister, a neighbor, a church, an 
employer, a union, a benevolent association--you name it. Those 
resources coming into the savings account no one has estimated. My 
judgment is that in the second 5 years it will be equal to what the 
families are putting in because people's imaginations begin. And it is 
a limitless opportunity for people to help youngsters have sufficient 
resources for helping their education, whether it is the requirement to 
have a tutor, or a home computer, or transportation, or after-school 
programs, or whatever is perceived to be the problem associated with 
the child.
  The majority leader has come. The Senator is trying to ask a 
question. Let us give the majority leader his time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for 10 
seconds?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to be clear. Since the Senator from Alaska sort 
of set the terms and was gracious enough to let me speak, I wanted to 
stay on the floor because I wanted to respond to the Senator's very 
eloquent viewpoint. I have not tried to debate using his time. Later on 
I will come back to the debate. But I did not want to leave in the 
middle of the Senator's remarks because I respect what he is trying to 
do. I don't understand how someone so nice can be so wrong. But we will 
come back to the debate.

  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, first, I want to congratulate the Senator 
from Georgia for the leadership he has provided on this issue and so 
many other issues, and for his persistence in coming to the floor and 
engaging in the discussion with the Senator from Minnesota and others.
  One of the things that comes to my mind is: What are you afraid of? 
What is it about this that causes you great concern? I am a product of 
public education from day one all the way through college all the way 
through law school. I really care about public education. I daresay a 
lot of our colleagues here in the Chamber can't say that. They went to 
one private school or another; one special school or another. Not me. I 
went to public schools in Mississippi from the first grade--in fact, 
even a little pre-first grade program right on through law school. When 
I was in elementary and in high school, my family didn't have a lot of

[[Page S2396]]

income. My mother was a schoolteacher. My dad was a shipyard worker. 
They could have used an opportunity to maybe save a little money to 
help with our education--my education needs when I was in high school, 
or when I got ready to go to college.
  So look at what we are talking about here: an education savings 
account. Who is disadvantaged by this? Shouldn't we encourage parents 
and grandparents and scholarship groups to save for their children and 
their grandchildren's needs? Maybe that is something that they would 
need in high school, or maybe even elementary school, as has been 
pointed out, whether it is computers or uniforms. Some schools are 
going to need uniforms or tutors. That is something that I think really 
could be very helpful.
  But also in this package are some other things that would have been 
helpful to me and my family. And that is, prepaid tuition opportunities 
that would allow people to save a little to begin to invest for tuition 
costs when their children get ready to go to a trade school, or 
community college, or college, or a university.
  Then also there is the very attractive provision that would encourage 
employers to have, as a part of their agreement with their employees, 
paid higher education provisions. Shouldn't we encourage that? Isn't 
that something that would be good for employers to do for their 
employees?
  What is it that our colleagues here are afraid of on these programs?
  Also, on the bond program for private organizations to build public 
schools, I have had some reservations about it. But in a State such as 
California, or a State like Florida, if some private company wants to 
participate and be a part of this bond opportunity to build public 
schools to help school districts, shouldn't we encourage that?
  So I am really astounded at some of the opposition I hear about this 
legislation. I think it would help children to have options. Yes, it 
might allow parents and children to be able to escape a violent school, 
or a dangerous school, or a drug-infested school to go someplace else. 
Shouldn't there be some provision to try to help them do that?
  Remember this: Everything in this bill, except the school 
construction fees, has already been voted on and passed by the Senate.
  I address a question to the Senator from Georgia. As I recall last 
year, the Senate passed the Coverdell education savings account with a 
very substantial vote. What was it?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Fifty-nine.
  Mr. LOTT. Fifty-nine Senators voted for this provision in the 1st 
session of the 105th Congress.

  The other provisions--I believe the prepaid tuition and the employer-
paid higher education provisions--were those both in the budget tax 
bill last year?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes; they were both in the tax bill.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe they were. And I believe they were advocated in 
the Finance Committee--at least one of them, if not both of them--by 
the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, because I remember in 
conference defending these programs. And they were objected to at that 
time by the House conferees. We didn't get them through. But they have 
been supported on a bipartisan basis. So I am really at a loss to 
understand the resistance to these, particularly since three of the 
four provisions have already been adopted by the Senate. I just wanted 
to have the Senator confirm for me my memory with regard to the strong 
vote that occurred.
  Should we have other amendments on education and tax provisions that 
would help education? Sure. Is this going to be the end of the debate 
this year on education? Probably not. I would imagine that Senators are 
going to have a number of provisions. Hopefully, we may even have 
another bill that would address the number of questions. I would like 
for us to consolidate some of the myriad of Federal programs that 
provide funds to education into a block grant. I understand there are 
some 750 Federal education programs of one sort or another, and almost 
39, I think it was, different agencies, bureaus, or departments.
  Couldn't we consolidate some of those and send them back to the 
States without strings and let the States decide if they want to use 
that money for school construction or for a merit pay for star 
teachers? But let the people at the local level decide how that money 
would be spent without it being directed by some Washington bureaucrat 
saying that you have to spend it here, or you must spend it there.
  So I wanted today to take the floor. I ask my colleague, Senator 
Daschle, to encourage my Democratic colleagues to work with us on some 
sort of agreement for the consideration of the Coverdell education 
savings account bill.
  On Friday, March 13, I offered an agreement that would provide for a 
minority substitute to be debated, and voted on first, prior to a 
cloture vote occurring, if one was necessary. Late last week I offered 
a second agreement that would provide for nine education amendments to 
be offered by Members of the minority, I believe it was 5 by the 
majority, for a total of 14 education taxes that would benefit 
education amendments with 9 going to the minority side.
  Needless to say, now both agreements were rejected. I understand that 
it is difficult to get some limit on amendments so that we can debate 
the ones that really are critical and come to some conclusion on this 
issue so we can move on to other issues. But I take the floor again 
today to attempt to reach an agreement on the education bill prior to a 
second cloture vote on Tuesday at 5:30. The agreement would be as 
follows:
  That there be nine education amendments in order as listed in the 
previous agreement, plus one amendment to be offered by the minority 
leader in the form of a substitute, if he so desires; one additional 
amendment to be offered by Senator Moseley-Braun of Illinois, as was 
suggested by Senator Daschle, one that might be important to be 
included on the list; and one to be offered by Senator Boxer. I don't 
even know the details of all of these amendments, except that I think 
they generally are in the education, or tax benefits for education 
category; and that there be five education amendments to be offered by 
Members on the majority side of the aisle.
  Before the minority leader responds, I hope he could keep in mind 
once again that this bill includes a number of positions or provisions 
that were advocated by our colleagues on the Democratic side of the 
aisle--Senators Breaux, Moynihan, Graham, Feinstein. And, as I 
understand it, 80 percent of the cost of this bill actually goes into 
those three areas: the bond program, the prepaid tuition, and the 
employer-paid higher education provision.
  So, having said that, I hope that the minority leader would be able 
to agree to this agreement in some form in the next few hours, and, if 
he has some suggestion or some other idea of how we can proceed, I am 
open to hearing those, also.
  I would be glad to yield the floor for a response of Senator Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will begin by asking the 
distinguished majority leader whether he has unanimous consent on his 
side. If we were to agree to this, would he get unanimous consent on 
his side for that particular proposal?
  Mr. LOTT. I believe we would. And I certainly would be prepared to 
aggressively advocate it and pursue it. You never know until you go to 
the individual Senators and work with them and try to get their 
agreement to go forward with it.
  I would not want to be the Senator on either side of the aisle who 
stands in the way of this major piece of education legislation.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Is the Senator then suggesting that he has not hot-lined 
it on his side?
  Mr. LOTT. We have been making Members aware of the agreement we were 
offering.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Oh.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me put it this way. We will get a unanimous consent 
agreement on our side to go with this, but it is useless to go with it 
if the Democratic leader does not indicate that this is something on 
which he would like for us both to try to get approval.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The reason I asked, Madam President, is because I am 
quite sure he cannot get unanimous consent on his side, at least for 
the moment. And I am not surprised he has

[[Page S2397]]

not hot-lined it, because he realizes he cannot get unanimous consent. 
I know of at least one Republican Senator who has indicated he would 
object. There may be others.
  So, having just made that part of the record, let me address the 
issue that the distinguished majority leader has propounded once more. 
I see the chart, and it notes that we have been on this bill for 10 
days. What I hope most people will recognize is that while we have been 
on it 10 days, our Republican colleagues have refused to entertain one 
Democratic amendment in those 10 days. What they are saying is, we want 
you to debate this bill on our terms or we are not going to debate it 
at all. So they bring the bill to the floor, they make a couple of 
speeches, they lament the fact that we cannot have this cave-in on 
Democratic amendments, and then they pull the bill and move on to 
something else. We have been playing this charade, this game, now for 
10 days: Put the bill down, give a couple of speeches, pull the bill 
off, blame it on the Democrats. I do not know about anybody else, but I 
think that gets a little tiresome. We have seen this charade now in the 
name of education for 10 days, and we may see it for a lot more.
  In 1992, we had a similar situation. Democrats were in the majority; 
the Republicans insisted, in a similar situation, that they be allowed 
to offer 52 amendments; 52. I have checked with all of my colleagues. I 
am told there may be somewhere between 10 and 15 amendments, give or 
take; I am not sure. We are still working on it in good faith, in 
response to the distinguished majority leader, who said, by the way, 
late last Friday, we would have some announcement, we would see if we 
could find a resolution for this, by Tuesday. Here it is 4 o'clock on 
Monday and I am presented with this once more on the floor. No 
consultation. No personal discussion. This is: Here is a proposal. Why 
aren't you Democrats responding as you should? Why are you holding this 
bill hostage for 10 days? It makes me wonder if they want agreement or 
whether they want to play games.
  So, in 1992 our Republican colleagues said they had to have 52 
amendments. What we are simply suggesting is that we have some very 
good ideas that are beyond the scope of this very limited--``Is that 
all there is?''--Republican answer to the problems we have in 
education. And for some reason they are afraid to vote on them. They do 
not want to vote on school construction. They do not want to vote on 
after-school programs. They do not want to vote on child care. They do 
not want to vote on all of the things that we have proposed in our 
agenda. Why? Because they will have to vote against them, and they 
don't want to do that.
  So that is what this is all about. Don't tell us we are holding this 
bill hostage. The hostage takers are on that side of the aisle. How 
they can come to the floor with a straight face and blame us is beyond 
me. But I have to tell you, we are going to continue to try to find a 
way to resolve this. I, in good faith, would like to find a way to 
allow our Senators the chance to offer good amendments on good 
education public policy. I want them to do it this week.
  The majority leader says we will have more opportunities. Why do I 
somehow fear that every time we will have an education vehicle on the 
floor, or a tax vehicle, we will be in this same situation? ``It is our 
bill or nothing at all. It is our amendments or nothing at all. You 
take this or nothing at all.'' Madam President, that just does not 
wash. This is the U.S. Senate, for Heaven's sake. Go over to the House 
and work under those kinds of rules if you want to constrain the debate 
that consequentially.

  So we will try to work it out. We will try to find a way to play by 
those rules. But I must say, it is very disconcerting. Sooner or later 
we will have a vote on school construction. There are too many schools 
out there that need some help. Sooner or later we will have an 
opportunity to vote on after-school programs, and on child care, and on 
the things that we have to do to deal realistically with public policy 
affecting education. No $7 bailout for those making $80,000 a year and 
say we have solved the education problem. That is not going to work.
  I see my colleague--I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator yielding for an inquiry. The 
regular order here in the Senate would be to bring a piece of 
legislation to the floor, amendments can be offered and debated, and 
then votes occur on the amendments.
  It seems to me to be a bad habit to bring to the floor a proposition 
and then file cloture motions immediately. In this case, the most 
recent opportunity to bring this bill to the floor occasioned two 
cloture motions before anybody had an opportunity to offer one 
amendment. That does not suggest a search for an agreement. Isn't it 
the case that the procedure that is suggested by the other side is 
extraordinary? The ordinary procedure would be to bring the bill to the 
floor and allow those who have amendments to offer the amendments, and 
then have votes on the amendments. Isn't that the regular order of the 
Senate?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. I 
have never seen this so-called debating institution so fearful of 
debate as I have on this particular bill. It is the most tepid approach 
to a good, healthy debate about education that I think anyone can 
imagine: ``File cloture because we don't want any amendments. File 
cloture because we don't want to have to vote on these amendments. File 
cloture because we have to move onto other things.'' You can come up 
with 100 reasons why we should file cloture, but the bottom line is, if 
it is 10 days, we have wasted a lot of time talking about talking, and 
we have not been able to deal with one issue. So, the Senator is right.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might just inquire further about this notion of 
individuals being held hostage. What have been held hostage in this 
process are the amendments that some of us would like to offer to 
legislation that comes before the Senate. If there is a hostage-taking 
here it is a hostage-taking of those of us who have ideas that we want 
to have debated in the Senate.
  This, after all, is a process of debating ideas. Some have ideas on 
the other side. Some of them may be very good. And some of us have 
ideas. If those who control this Chamber say, ``By the way, the way we 
are going to run this Chamber will be to allow our ideas to be debated, 
and then our strategy will be to limit your ideas,'' then I want to say 
that it doesn't work that way. Whoever stands at these desks is elected 
to the Senate and can operate in this Senate under the rules of the 
Senate. The rules allow a bill to be brought to the floor of the Senate 
and then allow every other Member, even that Member who sits in the 
farthest chair, with the least seniority, to stand up and offer his or 
her idea and to debate his or her idea here in the U.S. Senate. That is 
the way the rules are in the U.S. Senate. What is being asked of us is 
to create extraordinary rules here. That is where the hostage-taking 
comes in, taking hostage those who want to offer ideas, those who have 
other ideas about education in this debate.
  We have not had that opportunity, not even one opportunity to offer 
one amendment, and that is why I object to this notion about hostage 
day 10. The only hostage that exists here is the hostage of ideas that 
ought to be able to be offered under the regular order of the Senate.

  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I assume I still retain the floor?
  Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, though. Is the minority leader 
speaking under leader time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assumption is that he is proceeding under 
leader time.
  Mr. DODD. Will the distinguished leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Under my leader time, I will be happy to yield to the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the leader for yielding. I don't believe I heard 
one of the amendments being potentially allowed to be raised as one on 
the early education issues of child care alternatives which would 
promote public and private sector construction and improving the 
quality of early education. I do not believe I heard a proposal I had 
suggested on special education, which I might point out, by the way, 
the distinguished Senator from Mississippi cares deeply about. In fact,

[[Page S2398]]

he and I worked years ago, I would say to the Democratic leader, on the 
Budget Committee on the issue. But I would like to be able to raise 
that issue, I say to the Democratic leader, so the $1.6 billion 
specified in the Coverdell bill goes towards special education. I think 
it is a very important issue. I hope, and I inquire of the 
distinguished Democratic leader as to whether or not those two 
proposals would, under the present agreement, be allowed to be raised?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Connecticut is correct. Under the 
proposal raised by the distinguished majority leader, you would be 
denied an opportunity on the bill of offering relevant legislation that 
might give us an opportunity to debate whether the $1.6 billion ought 
to be spent on a $37 tax bailout for those making $100,000, $200,000 a 
year--$37 is all this legislation provides them in tax relief--or an 
opportunity to sincerely and very deeply help some people who otherwise 
are having serious trouble finding ways in which to pay for child care 
in this country today. So you would be denied that right.
  I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to just commend our leader and 
friend for his response to the proposal. As I understand his position, 
it is that we would like at least an opportunity to offer and vote on 
amendments on the important issues that have been introduced by the 
President of the United States such as increased support for early 
childhood education, smaller class size, more teachers, after-school 
programs, and education opportunity zones. Would he think it is 
appropriate, if we are dealing with an education proposal, that at 
least he be given, or those ideas be given, an opportunity for debate 
and discussion here on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
  Would I be correct in thinking that at least those proposals ought to 
be among the ones being advanced by our Republican friends, which 
targets public tax dollars to private schools rather than, as the 
President's does, to the public schools? Am I right?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. 
This would be the perfect opportunity for us, as we debate how are we 
going to spend $1.6 billion, whether it ought to be spent perhaps on 
school construction. Should we spend it on child care? Should we spend 
more than $1.6 billion on matters concerning after-school programs and 
the applications of our new technology to education? Should we have an 
opportunity to say what is the proper Federal role, given our 
circumstances right now, given the constraints we are working under in 
the budget?
  For whatever reason, our Republican colleagues are saying, ``I'm 
sorry we don't want you to offer those amendments. We don't want to 
have to vote on them. We don't want to spend the time on them.'' 
Apparently they don't think it is important enough to spend the time on 
them. ``We just want you to decide for us, and with us, whether giving 
$37 to people making $100,000 or more a year a tax break of $37 makes 
sense. That is what we want you to decide with us.'' We don't think 
that ought to be the rule of the Senate. We think the debate of the 
Senate on education ought to be broader than that. We think there ought 
to be a real opportunity to talk in detail about these issues.
  We are prepared to perhaps work through some suggestions on how we 
might limit amendments and try to find a way with which to deal with 
those issues that are directly confronting us. We are not there yet. 
Maybe we can't. But simply to tell Democrats, ``No, you are going to 
debate this bill on our terms or on no terms at all,'' is just not 
something we can accept. So the Senator from Massachusetts is entirely 
correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator, finally, really understand what our 
Republican leadership or Republican friends are really afraid of? Are 
they afraid to debate these issues? Is it just a question of working 
out a time agreement to discuss these matters fully and openly, or they 
afraid that their proposal won't measure up?

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I would be glad to try to respond to that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I was asking my leader. I would like to hear from 
Senator Daschle first, and then perhaps Senator Lott could respond.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to hear the majority leader's answer. 
My guess is, if I understand the Senator's question correctly, that 
they don't have an interest in school construction. They don't really 
have an interest in some of the amendments we are trying to offer here. 
They would prefer not to have to vote on them, because oftentimes these 
amendments are critical to school districts back home. So I don't blame 
the majority leader for trying to avoid having some of these tough 
votes. Maybe if I were in that position, I would, too.
  But the fact is that they are critical issues directly confronting 
education. We have an education bill pending. We have a tax bill 
pending, and the last time a circumstance similar to this occurred when 
we were in the majority, we let the Republicans offer 52 amendments. So 
that is really the essence of the question before us. Do we have a good 
debate about issues that are directly relevant to this bill or not? So 
far, the Republicans have refused us that debate. According to that 
chart, we are now in day 10.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, first of all, I want to respond to several 
questions that have been asked and comments that have been made. I 
would be glad to talk to the minority leader any time he would like 
about trying to work out a list. I was willing to do that Friday. I was 
willing to do that today. I hadn't really heard any suggestions or 
movement since we last talked on Thursday, and I thought it was 
important to come out here and show that we are willing to make 
movement.
  For instance, on the school construction issue that you just 
mentioned, I believe that one of the additional amendments that I 
listed here, the one by Senator Moseley-Braun, would deal with that 
issue. So we are not prepared to try to--we don't want to duck that 
issue or other education and taxes-for-education-related issues.
  I will tell you what we would like not to do. We would first like to 
stay on and talk about education and how to improve education in 
America. We would like the amendments to relate to improving the 
quality of education. What we would prefer not to do is debate 
amendments on this bill that have to do with the sale of livestock. 
That is one of the amendments that I understand somebody wants to 
offer--to amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude gain or loss for 
the sale of livestock from computation of capital gain net income for 
the purposes of the earned income credit. That is something I might be 
for, but I don't think it relates to education and an education bill.
  You talk about let us have a good debate about education. Do we want 
to get off into cows? And there are several others. Senator Wellstone 
wants to debate welfare reform on an education bill, food stamps on an 
education bill. There will be other times where those amendments can be 
offered. But I think to agree to a reasonable list of education 
amendments or tax amendments related to education, to have that kind of 
debate is fine. I think we can work that out if they are education 
related. But I don't think getting into all these other issues serves 
the purposes of getting a focused debate on education and getting this 
bill to a conclusion so that we can go to other, even emergency, pieces 
of legislation.
  Let me take, for example, the bill Senator Dodd just mentioned. He is 
right. I have, over the years, worked to try to support the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. But I note that the 
administration flat-lined that program. They did not provide the funds 
we promised, did not provide for increasing funds in that area. Yet, 
the Budget Committee this past week voted to add $2.5 billion over 5 
years to get the funding up for that program. So you can be assured, as 
the year goes forward, that we are going to have a debate about how 
much more money is needed for IDEA.

  But what we don't think we should have is what the Senator from 
Connecticut is proposing, which is to turn that program into another 
entitlement program--mandated appropriations, which would be an 
entitlement program. We need to face up to the fact

[[Page S2399]]

that this is an important education program that, quite frankly, is 
having real difficulties now because we have not provided the funding 
we said we were going to give. What it really has to do with is, we 
should not make it mandatory or an entitlement; we should live up to 
what we said we were going to do.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, I will, since I was responding to his particular 
question about that amendment.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I was proposing something that 
Senator Lott and I talked about years ago, which was the Federal 
commitment to special education, where we made a promise long ago to 
our communities across this country that we would have the Federal 
level of participation for special education around 40 percent. We are 
nowhere near that presently. We are still quite short of that 40 
percent commitment. I raise the question that if we have $1.6 billion 
would it be better allocated to help out families and communities with 
escalating special education costs?
  Mr. LOTT. How about helping out families by letting them make the 
choice on how to use that money at the local level?
  Mr. DODD. That is $37 is for private schools. You do not receive 
special education in private schools. It is a public school commitment 
I am referring to. I was in Connecticut recently and I spoke with a 
group of mayors, and they were very interested in ISTEA. I thank the 
majority leader for the way he moved on the transportation bill. But 
every mayor I talked to said, ``Senator, we need help on special 
education.''
  Mr. LOTT. I say to the Senator, we should do that--I wish the 
administration had done it--and we will have an opportunity to add 
funds to that when we vote on the budget resolution next week.
  Mr. DODD. But this is an education proposal. I would like to be able 
to offer this amendment. I would like to be able to offer communities 
money that can go to defray special education costs more than a $7 tax 
break. That is an alternative, a choice, I say to the leader. I should 
be allowed to offer that choice. It is an education matter. Shouldn't I 
be allowed to offer this amendment to our colleagues?
  Mr. LOTT. In answer to that, as a matter of fact, from the beginning, 
we have suggested to the minority leader that he could offer a 
substitute, which could include that and a number of other very 
attractive things. We think, though, the emphasis should be on giving 
parents and grandparents more opportunities to save for their children 
and decide how their own money would be spent. Let me yield to the 
Senator from Georgia----
  Mr. DODD. Well, I respect the prospect of offering that idea. But is 
that idea any more meritorious than my idea?
  Mr. LOTT. It is very interesting here----
  Mr. DODD. Shouldn't I be allowed, as an equal here, to offer an idea 
that says----
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if I could reclaim my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. First, it was 14 amendments, and 16 amendments, and then it 
was 16 amendments and a substitute. Where does it end? Quite frankly, 
if it was directly related to education and a tax provision, I would be 
inclined to say, yes, let us debate and vote. I don't think we ought to 
vote on cows and welfare reform. Where will it end? I don't really 
think that you want us to be able to get a process that gets us some 
amendments and votes and gets to a conclusion.

  I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the majority leader. I think a better question 
is, where did it begin? Let us remember that this is the fourth 
filibuster. This all comes from a proposal that was passed by the 
Senate with 59 votes--overwhelmingly--and the President of the United 
States told us he would veto the entire Nation's tax relief if that 
line stayed in the bill. So that is where we began--the Senate adopting 
a proposal, the House adopting a proposal, and the administration 
saying, no way, no deal, no how. It all goes down. So we brought it 
back as a freestanding proposal. That was filibustered. Then we tried 
to move to the bill in this sitting of the Congress, and that was 
filibustered. And we have now had a cloture vote to bring it to an end. 
We have had three separate suggestions to try to keep it within the 
realm of germaneness.
  But I think one thing that has not been really talked about here 
today is that, yes, there is a concern that this is just another 
filibuster. There is no end to it. If you look at the empirical 
evidence, everything we have seen is designed not to modify, but to 
kill or to ``poison pill'' this thing. You all have used that term very 
frequently, ``poison pill.'' We are concerned about that. Now, I don't 
want to get into debate now. We have both leaders here.
  I will come to the point of my good friend, Senator Dodd, on the $7 
and the like. You don't acknowledge the principle that it has gathered 
up to support public and private education when you try to describe it 
as the amount of tax relief. What that means is that a person has, on 
the private side, saved over $1,000, which is a 50 percent increase in 
the average family savings. On the $7 side, it is a $200 account. It 
ultimately means that over $2.5 billion in 5 years--$5 billion-plus--is 
going to public support and private support within 10 years.
  But we will have time to come back to that. I want to honor our two 
leaders here by trying to iron out how we might proceed.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I see the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee here. He has some work he needs to do, amendments he needs to 
work on between now and 5:30. I believe we have an amendment to be 
offered around 5 with a vote to occur at 5:30. I see that Senator 
Daschle may want to respond more. I will run down two or three points, 
and perhaps we can wrap this up.
  As far as a move to try to block amendments, I remind the body that 
when this bill was called up, the motion to proceed was filibustered, 
objected to--not even to get to the substance or get to amendments, 
just the motion to proceed was filibustered. We had to have a cloture 
vote on even proceeding to the point where we might get to the 
substance. No amendments. I have suggested here 16 amendments, I 
believe it is, plus a substitute. If we need to give or take some, I am 
willing to work on that. Now, as far as whose willing to go along with 
this agreement, I remind my colleagues on the Democratic side of the 
aisle that 55 of our Senators, every one of them, voted for cloture 
last week. And as far as regular procedure around here, regular 
procedure is that after you have talked for a while, cloture motions 
are quite often filed. I have watched Senator Mitchell and Senator Dole 
and Senator Byrd file cloture after cloture. I note to my colleagues 
that I have had to file clotures 43 times in the 105th Congress, and we 
have had to actually vote 31 times. Tomorrow, if we don't get this 
worked out, it will be 32 times to stop the talk and get to the 
substance. Also, you need to remember that postcloture doesn't mean you 
can't have amendments. They have to be germane amendments. There would 
still be amendments. I think there were maybe 14, 15, or 16 amendments 
filed that would have probably cleared the postcloture vote.
  So, who is being cut off here? I think the average American sitting 
out there listening to this is saying, ``I don't understand. You mean 
you are going to have 14 amendments on an education bill and you don't 
think that is enough?''
  What is reasonable? I have tried to be. I will continue to be. If the 
Senator from South Dakota has some specific recommendation of how we 
can get to an agreement and not have to go through another cloture 
vote, I would certainly be more than glad to entertain that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me respond to a few of the points 
made by our colleagues in the last few minutes.
  First, with regard to the motion to proceed, the majority leader 
wasn't forced to file that motion. We could have gone on a motion to 
proceed. We could have gotten onto the bill. The problem, as the 
majority leader, I think, would note, is that there is a great deal of 
concern on this side about

[[Page S2400]]

his inaction on judges. We have done 10 judges so far this year. There 
are approximately 40 judges still pending in the U.S. Senate. Six are 
on the calendar. He knows very well that that was a vote on judges. It 
was a vote desired by several of our colleagues on my side of the aisle 
to express how frustrated they are that we are not getting the 
cooperation that we were promised about Federal judges, about moving 
through these judges. We get one, we get another, we get a third maybe 
now and then--just enough to keep everybody mollified. But the fact is, 
you have 40 judges that still have to be acted upon, most of which 
haven't even come out of committee yet.

  He makes mention of the fact that he was ``forced'' to file cloture. 
He hasn't been forced to file cloture this year. He has chosen to file 
cloture, but he hasn't been forced to file cloture. No leader is forced 
to file cloture. He has filed cloture to prevent Democrats from 
offering amendments. So I suppose from that perspective, in order to 
preclude us from offering amendments, he is forced to do so, but he 
isn't forced, as leader, to prevent the Senate from having a good 
debate about these issues.
  I defy my Republican colleagues to find a time when we were in the 
majority that we filed cloture to prevent an amendment. Now, we had 
amendments; amendments were offered; but we never filed cloture to 
prevent an amendment, and I defy my colleagues to find a time.
  I would like to go to the point raised by the majority leader about 
how improper it is to offer amendments to a tax bill that are not 
directly related to education. Again, I go back to this time in 1992 
when our Republican colleagues demanded they be able to offer 52 
amendments. This particular bill, this Enterprise Zone Tax Incentives 
Act, was a tax vehicle very similar to the tax vehicle we have here on 
the education bill. This is an enterprise zone tax act.
  Our colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, whom I admire immensely, 
demanded the opportunity to offer an amendment on, what? On tractors. 
That is right. Our colleague from Florida asked to be able to be 
recognized so that he could offer an amendment on tractors on an 
enterprise zone act.
  And then my colleague, the distinguished majority leader, even though 
this was an Enterprise Zone Tax Incentive Act, said, ``You know, I know 
it is just on enterprise zones, but I want to talk about scholarships; 
I want to have an amendment on scholarships.'' And guess what? That is 
on the list, too.
  And then our colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, said, ``You 
know what, I know it is just a little old tax bill dealing with 
enterprise zones, but I have an amendment on dental schools, and I want 
to offer that.'' And guess what happened? The U.S. Senate had a debate, 
we agreed to debate all the amendments to be offered, we had a debate 
on them, we offered our amendments, we had our day, we finished the 
bill, and it went on.
  But our Republican colleagues were not coming to the floor then 
saying, this is just an enterprise zone, so we don't think we ought to 
be able to offer nonenterprise zone amendments; we want to offer 
amendments on tractors; we want to offer amendments on dental schools; 
we even have a great scholarship amendment we think the Democrats ought 
to vote for.
  What a difference some time makes. It is now 1998. We have a tax bill 
on the floor. Our Republican colleagues are saying, ``No, we don't want 
you to offer 52 amendments.'' Last week it was a half a dozen, then it 
was 9, now the leader is saying 15--but not 52 and not on anything but 
education; you have to stick to education, by golly.
  This is an entitlement program. Let nobody misunderstand, this is an 
entitlement program we are talking about. If we pass this, we pass a 
new entitlement program. We pass a tax bill. So when you manage the 
Senate floor, you have to come to the realization that when you pass 
something with the consequences of a new entitlement and a new tax 
program, there may be a few amendments and they may not be just on the 
topic to which the bill is supposed to be directed.
  So, Madam President, we can talk about cattle and welfare and 
education and all of these issues. The bottom line is, are we ever 
going to get to a point where we can move off this impasse? I again 
make the offer to make my best effort to do so. We will continue to try 
to do so. But I hope nobody here is swayed by these arguments that we 
can't come on to the Senate floor with a tax bill and not talk about 
taxes and not talk about entitlements, and if we are going to talk 
about farms, maybe we ought to remember that once, not long ago, we 
talked about tractors and that was OK.

  I hope we can resolve this, but it is going to take some give on both 
sides, and we both have to realize that to move forward, it is going to 
require some cooperation here; we are not going to get it just the way 
we want it. We may not be able to offer 52 amendments, but we have some 
darn good amendments that ought to be considered here, and we are going 
to do all that we can to ensure that our rights are protected.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader.

                          ____________________