[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2631-S2636]
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, on behalf of the leader, as most 
Members have been aware, the two leaders have been working toward an 
agreement with respect to the Coverdell A+ education bill going on a 
week now--13 days, to be exact. The leader regrets to inform the Senate 
that we will not be able to reach an agreement which would have 
provided for an orderly procedure to consider the bill, education-
related amendments only.
  Therefore, the leader notifies the Senate that the cloture vote will 
occur at 5:30 p.m. today and the Senate will now resume the bill for 
debate for 30 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2646) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to allow tax-free expenditures from education individual 
     retirement accounts for elementary and secondary school 
     expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of 
     contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

[[Page S2632]]

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, this is the fourth filibuster on this 
proposal.
  When this measure came before the Senate last year, we were told that 
it was a pretty good idea but it needed to go through the process. It 
has now been through the Finance Committee. It now embraces many ideas 
from the other side of the aisle, and, of course, its principal 
cosponsor is from the other side of the aisle, Senator Torricelli of 
New Jersey.
  It was reported out with a bipartisan vote 12-8 on February 10, 1998. 
Provisions have been added to the bill from Senators Moynihan of New 
York, Graham of Florida, Breaux of Louisiana. Eighty percent of the tax 
relief embodied in the bill reflects amendments from the other side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Absolutely.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I was preoccupied when the Senator made the unanimous 
consent request; I apologize. Was the request made for one-half hour of 
debate prior to the vote to be taken at 5:30, and was it equally 
divided?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. COVERDELL. As I said, we are in our fourth filibuster. The 
majority leader has now offered five different proposals. I don't think 
it is necessary to enumerate each of the five different proposals. We 
have made progress, but every time, there is one more obstacle to 
getting to the bill and getting to it within the parameters of 
education debate.
  If this filibuster continues, I just want to point out that about 14 
million American families will be denied the opportunity to establish 
savings accounts that will help some 20 million children, that 70 
percent of those families will be families that have children in public 
schools, 30 percent in private.

  To hear some of the opponents, you would think this is a private 
education savings account. It is far from it. These families would save 
about $5 billion in the first 5 years and another $5-plus billion in 
the second 5 years. So we are talking about a lot of money coming to 
the aid of education without the requirement to raise taxes. No new 
property taxes, no new Federal taxes. These are families stepping 
forward to help their children. That will be blocked. Those millions of 
Americans' opportunity will be stunted.
  If the filibuster continues, the qualified State tuition provision, 
which would affect some 1 million students gaining an advantage and 
more provisions when they get to college, 1 million employees will be 
denied the opportunity to have their employers help them pay for 
continuing education or fulfilling their educational needs, and 250,000 
graduate students will be denied that opportunity as well; $3 billion 
will disappear from the financing capacity of local school districts to 
build some 500 new schools across the Nation.
  This is not a very productive filibuster. The American public, 
particularly those concerned about better education and the need for 
it, have this roadblock standing in front of them through this 
filibuster. I compliment both leaders for endeavoring to try to get 
this accomplished. But I think fairness has been extended. I conclude 
this statement by saying I think that fairness has been accorded and 
common sense, as well. I have to conclude we are just still in the 
midst of a filibuster.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 2646, the Parent and Student Savings Account PLUS Act, which will 
create educational choices and academic opportunities for millions of 
young Americans. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure 
for which my colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell, has tirelessly fought 
on behalf of our Nation's students since it was stripped from the 1997 
Balanced Budget Act.
  The legislation allows up to $2,000 each year to be placed in an 
educational savings account, or A-PLUS account, for an individual 
child. This money would earn tax-exempt interest and could be used for 
the child's elementary and secondary educational expenses, including 
tuition for private or religious schools, home computers, school 
uniforms and tutoring for special needs.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, about 14 million 
families with children could take advantage of A-PLUS education savings 
accounts. About 75 percent of the families who would utilize these 
accounts would be public school parents. At least 70 percent of this 
tax benefit would accrue to families with annual incomes less than 
$75,000.
  The most exciting aspect of this bill is the creation of individually 
controlled accounts that can be used to address the unique needs of the 
child for whom they are created. Funds in these A-PLUS accounts can be 
used to hire a tutor for a child who is struggling with math, or 
foreign language lessons to help a child become bilingual or even 
multilingual. They are available to purchase a home computer or help a 
child with dyslexia obtain a special education teacher. In short, the 
A-PLUS accounts would enhance the educational experience of a child by 
meeting their unique needs, concerns, or abilities.
  It is important to note that A-PLUS accounts would not carry any 
restrictions regarding who can deposit funds. However, there is a limit 
on the total amount which can be deposited annually into an individual 
child's account. Thus, deposits into the account, up to a total of 
$2,000, could come from a variety of sources, including parents, 
grandparents, neighbors, community organizations and businesses. This 
provision enhances the prospect that more children could maximize this 
educational benefit.
  This bill also contains several important initiatives which would 
positively impact access to higher education and school construction.
  First, it would assist qualifying pre-paid college tuition plans. 
Currently, 21 states allow parents to pre-purchase their child's 
college tuition at today's prices. The A-PLUS bill would make these 
pre-paid plans tax free, thus encouraging additional States to create 
similar programs which make college more affordable for more families.
  Second, this legislation encourages employer-provided educational 
assistance by extending the tax exclusion of employer-provided 
undergraduate school courses to December 31, 2002. Currently, this tax 
exclusion is set to expire on May 31, 2000. In addition, it would allow 
graduate-level courses to be included in this tax exemption.
  Third, the bill would allow school districts and other local 
government entities to issue up to $15 million in tax-exempt bonds for 
full school construction. This is an increase of 50 percent from the 
current level of $10 million.
  Finally, this bill allows students who receive a National Health 
Corps scholarship to exclude it from their gross income for tax 
purposes. These individuals help provide vital medical and dental 
services to our nation's under-served areas.
  These components, combined with the A-PLUS created under this bill, 
will make significant strides toward improving the academic performance 
of our Nation's students.
  Mr. President, if a report card on our Nation's educational system 
were sent home today, it would be full of unsatisfactory and incomplete 
marks. In fact, it would be full of ``D's'' and ``F's.'' These 
abominable grades demonstrate our failure to meet the needs of our 
Nation's students in kindergarten through twelfth grade.
  Currently, the Federal Government spends more than $100 billion on 
education and about $30 billion of this is spent on educational 
programs managed by the Department of Education. Still, we are failing 
to provide many of our children with adequate training and academic 
preparation for the real world.
  Our failure is clearly seen in the results of the Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Over forty countries 
participated in the study which tested science and mathematical 
abilities of students in the fourth, eighth and twelfth grades. Our 
students scored tragically lower than students in other countries. 
According to this study, our twelfth graders scored near the bottom, 
far below almost 23 countries including Denmark, France and Lithuania 
in advanced math and at the absolute bottom in physics.
  Meanwhile, students in Russia, a country which is struggling 
economically, socially and politically, outscored U.S. children in math 
and

[[Page S2633]]

scored far above them in advanced math and physics. Clearly, in order 
for the United States to remain a viable force in the world economy, 
our children must be better prepared academically.
  We can also see our failure when we look at the Federal Government's 
efforts to combat illiteracy. We spend over $8 billion a year on 
programs to eradicate illiteracy across the country. Yet, we have not 
seen any significant improvement in literacy in any segment of our 
population. Today, more than 40 million Americans can not read a menu, 
instructions, medicine labels or a newspaper. And, tragically, four out 
of ten children in third grade can not read.
  Mr. President, this is an outrage. But contrary to popular belief 
here in Washington, pouring more and more money into the existing 
educational system is not the magic solution for what ails our schools.
  The problem runs much deeper than a lack of funding. And the solution 
is more complicated.
  In fact, according to the most recent studies, there is very little, 
if any, correlation between the amount of money spent on education and 
the academic performance of students. A Brookings Institute study 
reported that, ``The Nation is spending more and more to achieve 
results that are no better, and perhaps worse.''
  Over the past decade the U.S. Department of Education has spent about 
$200 billion on elementary and secondary education, yet achievement 
scores continue to stagnate or drop and an increasing proportion of 
America's students are dropping out of school. Most of our students are 
not meeting proficient levels in reading, and according to the 1994 
``National Assessment of Education Progress,'' 57 percent of our high 
school seniors lacked even a basic knowledge of U.S. history.
  I am also disturbed by the disproportionate amount of Federal 
education dollars which actually reach our students and schools. It is 
deplorable that the vast majority of Federal education funds do not 
reach our school districts, schools and children. In 1995, the 
Department of Education spent $33 billion for education and only 13.1 
percent of that reached the local education agencies. It is 
unacceptable that less than 13 percent of the funds directly reached 
the individual schools and their students.
  The lack of a correlation between educational funding and performance 
can also be seen internationally. Countries which outrank the United 
States in student academic assessments often spend far less than we do 
and yet, their students perform much better than our students. The 
United States spends an average of $1,040 per student in elementary and 
secondary education costs. By comparison Hungary spends $166, New 
Zealand spends $415, Australia spends $663, Slovenia spends $300, the 
Netherlands spend $725, and each of these countries' students performed 
well above U.S. students in the mathematics portion of the Third 
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS.) Obviously, these 
countries are succeeding in providing their children with a high-
quality education, and spending less to do so.
  Mr. President, clearly, the Federal government has a role in the 
education of our citizens. I have supported many vitally important 
Federal programs which enhance the educational opportunities of young 
Americans, such as financial aid for college students, aid to 
impoverished school districts, and special education programs for 
disabled children. However, much of the Federal Government's 
involvement in education is highly bureaucratic and overly regulatory, 
and actually impedes our children's learning.
  Clearly, we need to be more innovative in our approach to educating 
our children. We need to focus on providing parents, teachers, and 
local communities with the flexibility, freedom, and, yes, the 
financial support to address the unique educational needs of their 
children and the children in their communities.
  For example, I see no reason why most Federal education programs 
should not be block-granted to States and local school boards. Such a 
step would provide new flexibility to parents and local school 
officials, and eliminate Federal intrusion in local and state education 
policies. Personally, I have the utmost faith and confidence in parents 
and educators to utilize federal education dollars productively and 
efficiently, and in the best interests of the children in their 
communities.
  Mr. President, it is absolutely crucial, as we debate this and other 
proposals to reform our educational system, that we not lose sight of 
the fact that our paramount goal must be to increase the academic 
knowledge and skills of our Nation's students. Our children are our 
future, and if we neglect their educational needs, we threaten that 
future.
  I am gravely concerned that goal is sometimes lost in the very 
spirited and often emotional debate on education policies and 
responsibilities. Instead, this should be a debate about how best to 
ensure that young Americans will be able to compete globally in the 
future. I believe the key to academic excellence is broadening 
educational opportunities and providing families and communities both 
the responsibility and the resources to choose the best course for 
their students.
  The A-PLUS bill is an important step toward returning to parents and 
communities the means and responsibility to provide for their 
children's education. This is why I support Senator Coverdell's 
legislation and will continue to support innovative, flexible programs 
which focus on the best interests of our children, our future.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I regret that we have not been able to 
find a final and successful resolution to our discussions which have 
extended now over the course of several days.
  I think it is important to lay out what has happened to date and 
where we are so everybody knows what the circumstances are. As everyone 
knows, the legislation came to the floor immediately and a cloture vote 
was filed on the motion to proceed. I supported that motion to proceed 
because I felt it was important that we move on to the legislation. 
There was some concern expressed about other unrelated matters, and so 
there was a divided vote on the motion to proceed, but it was an 
overwhelming vote.
  We then got to the bill itself, and I expressed the desire on the 
part of many of our colleagues that we have a right to offer 
amendments. It was at that point that cloture was filed again, prior to 
the time we had the chance to offer even the first amendment. Cloture 
was not invoked, as the record shows. That began a series of 
negotiations about amendments.
  As I discussed the matter with my colleagues, our list included about 
32 amendments originally proposed to the bill. While that sounds like a 
lot of amendments, as I have noted now on several occasions on the 
Senate floor, it pales by comparison with regard to a similar 
circumstance that we had in 1992. A narrowly drafted tax bill having to 
do with a matter that most of us are very interested in, enterprise 
zones, was offered, and our Republican colleagues proposed at that time 
that they be granted the right to offer 52 amendments, including 
amendments on unrelated matters--on tractors and scholarships and the 
like.
  We didn't offer 52 amendments; we originally suggested 32. We were 
told that that is too many. I went to all of my colleagues and I said, 
``Look, we will have to pare this down. I want to be cooperative.'' So 
we pared it from 32 down to 15. I took that to the leader and I said 
the one thing we really are determined not to do is to give up our 
right to have those amendments second degreed, but we will drop it by 
more than 50 percent. We will go from 32 amendments down to 15 
amendments so long as we have the right to have an up-or-down vote.
  They said, ``Well, we will probably consider having up-or-down votes, 
but you have to put time limits on all the amendments.'' Then I went to 
all my colleagues and I said, ``Well, you aren't going to believe this. 
I'm going to have to ask you not only to pare your amendments from 32 
to 15, but now I'm going to have to ask you to accept time limits, and 
we are hoping that we can limit it to at least a couple of hours 
each.'' So it was suggested and my colleagues cooperated.
  I presented that, and I reported to the leader that we had agreed to 
time limits. The leader then came back and said, ``Well, now we have a 
new request. The request is that not only do we want time limits, but 
the amendments have to be on education. We are

[[Page S2634]]

not going to allow any amendments that are not related to education.'' 
I went back to my colleagues again and I said, ``You aren't going to 
believe this, but now we have to agree to limit our amendments to 15, 
to limit our amendments in terms of time, and now to limit them in 
terms of issue.'' I went back again to the leader I said, ``Well, I 
think we can do that.''
  He came back again and he said, ``You are going to have to allow 
second degrees.'' Now they have to be second degreed. I said, ``I don't 
know if I can do that.'' I went back to my colleagues again and I said, 
``You aren't going to believe this, but now we have to allow second 
degree amendments to all these amendments. Not only do you have to 
reduce from 32 to 15, not only do you have to allow a limit on the 
issue, that is education, but now you have to allow second degrees.''
  So on four separate occasions, because of demands from our Republican 
colleagues that be cooperative, I have had to call upon my colleagues 
to reduce the amendments by more than half, to reduce the amount of 
time, to allow second degrees, and not to allow any extraneous issues, 
even though 4 years ago when the roles were reversed they demanded 
votes on tractors.
  So I must say, Mr. President, the record ought to be very clear about 
who has cooperated here, who has put out the very best effort to ensure 
that somehow we could bring this bill to the floor. But the bar keeps 
getting raised higher and higher and higher. So if indeed we are the 
U.S. Senate, it seems to me there comes a time when you say, what else 
can we do? What else is there left? We have education amendments. We 
have agreed to second degrees. We have agreed to even less than an hour 
on these amendments; now it is down to a half hour on each amendment. 
We have agreed to that. We have agreed now that they be limited to 
education. We have even cut down further the number of amendments. Yet, 
our Republican colleagues say that is not enough. That is not enough. 
Go back and do more, prove to us more that you are going to be 
cooperative. Make sure that you ask your colleagues for more.
  I think there is a message here. The message is that nothing is good 
enough. Ultimately, there is no way we can satisfy our colleagues on 
the other side because I don't think they want an agreement. I must say 
that I do not fault the author of the bill. I am not suggesting he is 
behind this. I certainly do not fault the majority leader. I think he 
has made a concerted, good-faith effort to try to figure out a way to 
deal with this. But I must say that I hope he would say the same about 
me. I hope, after what I have just described, that it is clear that we 
have done everything I know how to do, under these circumstances, to be 
able to resolve this matter in a way that will accommodate both sides. 
But for me now to go back and say we have given our all, but now we 
have to even give up education amendments--the last criticism related 
to me by the majority leader was that we had too many education 
amendments. It wasn't the issue any longer. We have given that up. Now 
they are saying we have too many education amendments on an education 
bill. So now they are asking the minority to say, OK, majority, you 
tell us what the issue ought to be, what the circumstances for debate 
ought to be, and now even whether or not we should be able to offer an 
education amendment on an education bill and we should accept that 
because we are the minority.
  That is what this cloture vote is about, Mr. President. We are being 
asked to cave completely, to give it all up. We cannot do that. There 
comes a time when you have to be able to say, look, we just can't give 
anymore.
  So I hope my colleagues will understand that. We were within, I 
thought, minutes or inches of reaching an agreement, in part because of 
the effort made by the majority leader. But we are not there now. I 
hope the message will be clear; there comes a time when you just cannot 
give anymore.
  A couple of colleagues have asked to speak. I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our leader, Senator Daschle, for 
the efforts he has made to try to raise the education issue for debate 
here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I think that, historically, there 
have been great debates on education, when we found common ground, and 
they were basically bipartisan in nature. It has been rare that we have 
been unable to at least have a good, full debate on the education 
issue.
  It is regrettable that our Republican friends are so unsure of their 
position on education policy that they would deny the opportunity for a 
debate on upgrading and modernizing our schools, providing for smaller 
classrooms, improving the teachers in our country and the after-school 
programs.
  So I say to our leader that I look forward to the time here on the 
Senate floor when we can have the kind of debate that I think the 
country wants. The country recognizes that education is the key issue 
for the future of our Nation, and we ought to be debating the best 
ideas of Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I share that point of view. Obviously, there are a lot 
of areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats. There are many 
things with which there are disagreements. That is really the essence 
of this whole debate. Shouldn't we have an opportunity to talk about 
some of those disagreements? But I think the record is pretty clear. 
After all these days, we have been precluded from offering the first 
amendment to which there may be some disagreement.

  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority side has 3 minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the minority leader. I also thank the 
leader for his unstinting efforts to try to work out a compromise that 
will allow for a balanced debate about the subject matter of amendments 
from both sides of the aisle.
  The real tragedy here, Mr. President, is that this is one of the most 
important issues that we will take up this year--the education of our 
children and how we are going to provide for the development of 
partnerships between the Federal, State, and local governments, and 
communities and parents, to provide the best possible education for the 
children of this country.
  It is a vitally important issue going to our national security as a 
Nation, our future as a country. Yet, here we are in a situation in 
which the ideas from this side of the aisle are being shut down, are 
being foreclosed. We are not having an opportunity to talk about those 
ideas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allocated to the Senator has expired.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I see other colleagues seeking 
recognition. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from 
Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his 
continued work on this issue to try to allow us the opportunity to come 
here to the floor to talk about the most critical issue in this country 
today, which is the education of our young children.
  There is a very serious debate that ought to be had. Are we going to 
go down the road of vouchers and block grants and cutting out the 
Department of Education, where fewer and fewer children have the 
opportunity for an education? Or are we going to talk about the 
proposals that we would like to debate--whether or not our class sizes 
should be smaller, how we are going to train our teachers for the 
skills they need with our children in their schools, how we are going 
to deal with our classrooms that need school construction so badly 
across this country. There is a debate to be had. We are ready to join 
it. We want to have that opportunity, and we will stand behind the 
Democratic leader to be allowed to have that debate on this floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I may have to use a minute or two of 
leader time.
  I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I, too, commend the Democratic leader for 
his efforts to ensure that this debate reaches the full spectrum of 
issues that concern American education.
  I believe there is one thing we can all agree upon: The problems of 
American education are multiple, and to conduct

[[Page S2635]]

a debate that would focus exclusively on one remedy and not allow other 
voices, other approaches, is, to me, relinquishing our responsibility 
to deal principally and responsibly with education policy in the United 
States.
  There are proposals by my colleagues with respect to class size. 
Again, we are seeing evidence from States like Tennessee, where it 
makes a real difference in performance in education. Yet, we are not 
allowed to talk about those issues in this debate. If we are going to 
approach this issue with the idea of helping American education rather 
than the idea of promoting one particular ideological version, we have 
to allow for open, robust debate that incorporates all of the 
amendments my colleagues are proposing. And the idea to carry on 
without the debate, to me, is not worthy of this body.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All of the time of the minority leader has 
expired.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of my leader time to the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the leader. Let me thank both 
leaders here. It is not an easy task to try to fashion these 
agreements. I sympathize in that we have spent I don't know how many 
days trying to work out an agreement to discuss amendments. In a sense, 
what the Democratic leader was trying to do was get the bill up and 
allow the amendment process to flow. I suspect this bill might have 
been dealt with after having been given a chance to raise these 
amendments earlier.
  It may seem like it is not that large an issue to people. It is one 
proposal. I suspect this may be one of the few opportunities when we 
will get a chance to debate education this year, given our calendar. I 
suggest to my colleagues, Mr. President, that we are talking about $1.6 
billion that will go toward education in this case. I think having a 
healthy debate about where those resources go is something that the 
country would like to hear. Whether or not we want it to support 
building up the deteriorating schools that our colleague from Illinois, 
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, proposes, or deal with classroom size, 
which Senator Murray proposes, or whether or not we want to go into 
special education, these are legitimate issues about how you allocate 
scarce resources.
  I applaud the efforts of our leader and, hopefully, we can get some 
accommodation so we can have a good, healthy debate.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just a little history. Before I do that, I 
know that I certainly have tried to work out something that Members on 
both sides could live with. I believe Senator Daschle has, too. But we 
have Senators on both sides who have very strong feelings about 
amendments that are suggested on both sides. There are amendments on 
the Democratic side that other Democrats have problems with, and it is 
the same thing over here. There are Republican amendments that other 
Republicans have problems with. So we have made a sincere effort.
  I remind you that we started this effort on the 13th. Maybe there is 
a significance to that. On Friday, March 13, we started working on 
this. The problem is, if you want a good, healthy debate on education, 
fine, let's have it. I will not play second fiddle to anybody when it 
comes to my concern about education.
  By the way, I am a product of public education; so is my wife and 
both of our children. But I am worried about the quality of education 
and the violence and drugs in schools. But the difference is, I don't 
think the answers are here in Washington. Some people say, let's have 
everything paid for and run everything from Washington. We have tried 
that ever since the 1960s. The scores are going down and violence is 
going up.
  I care about this mightily. Let's have a debate about education. We 
are going to have a debate about education this year--not one, but 
probably two or three. But some Senators say, let's open it up and have 
debate, let's have amendments of all kinds. That is what was going to 
happen. We were going to wind up debating cows. And I don't want to go 
off on cows because cattle are important in Mississippi. I love beef. 
We were going to have welfare debates and debates about everything 
imaginable.
  That is what has happened the whole year so far. On every bill that 
comes up, every Senator takes advantage of his or her right and says, 
``I have my amendment or amendments,'' and they just grow like Topsy on 
everything.
  Supplemental appropriations--a bill we should have done Friday 
afternoon--is still sitting around here. I am not blaming that on one 
side or the other. I am saying ``Senators,'' not one side or the other. 
Both sides don't seem to want to get serious about resolving the 
supplemental appropriation bills that we have now combined into one.

  But the problem has boiled down to the fact that we still have 
Senators insisting--``We went through this process. We don't want 
second-degree amendments.'' Some say, on the one hand, ``We want to do 
the regular order.'' When we say ``second-degree amendments,'' you say, 
``but not that regular order.'' You continue to insist on amendments 
that don't relate to education. Senators object to that. I have been 
told that we must have Senator Kerry's amendment but we cannot have 
Senator Gorton's amendment. I don't understand that. Senator Gorton's 
is education related; Senator Kerry's was not; his was on child care. 
We will debate that another day.
  Talk about fairness. I have bent over backward, until my back is 
almost broken. Remember, the base bill is three-fourths a Democrat 
bill. I don't care because those three-fourths that the Democrats came 
up with are pretty good ideas--prepaid tuition for college, yes, I am 
for that; deductions for higher education employer-employee 
arrangements, hey, I am for that. That was promoted by Senator Breaux 
from Louisiana, Senator Moynihan from New York, and Senator Graham from 
Florida. We have the school production bond issue thing in here, plus 
what we sent back today is our final offer. There were 12 amendments 
for Democrats, 3 for Republicans. I mean, how far can I go? I was told, 
yes, only three. But you say, ``We don't want Gorton in there.'' So I 
tried. I think Senator Daschle has tried. It is time that we have a 
vote on cloture. Maybe I made a mistake by not saying let's do it 
earlier, and Senator Daschle might say the same thing. But I think the 
record speaks for itself: 3 out of 4 provisions in the bill, Democrats; 
12 out of 15 amendments, Democrats. I mean that is in most games--
whatever it is--more than fair.

  But we tried. Let's have a vote on cloture. This is a vote to get a 
good debate on the education provisions which Senators on both sides 
support. And we will see what happens and take it from there.
  Mr. President, I believe we have 2 or 3 minutes remaining. I yield 
the remainder of the time to Senator Coverdell, who has done a great 
job working through all of this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of both 
leaders.
  But the point is, we are still in a filibuster. When this proposal 
was in the tax relief bill last year, the President said he would veto 
the entire tax relief bill if this education savings account was in it. 
Then we went through one or two filibusters. We tried to deal with it. 
We had a stand-alone measure last year, and then we had a filibuster 
attempt. And we tried to proceed to it this year. Now we are trying to 
bring cloture, which, I might point out, doesn't end the amendments. If 
you file cloture, it is a Senate rule that says you are going to 
confine amendments to the subject matter. When I was in the State 
Senate in Georgia, we had to do that on everything. It was unique that 
you could amend with nongermane amendments.
  But that is what we are trying to bring order to. And after we have 
been through four filibusters, a veto threat, we become concerned that 
we are not in a serious effort to get to the actual education 
components.
  It is my understanding that we have said the other side can have its 
own substitute, an education amendment. There has been severe 
resistance to non-education-related amendments, and I understand an 
amendment of the Senator from Nebraska is still at play.

[[Page S2636]]

And it is not an education amendment. It is my understanding that an 
education amendment on our side is being objected to. We are going to 
have a vote here in a minute.
  I want to, in closing, stress that this is a bipartisan proposal and 
one of the most dogged, persistent attempts to get this legislation 
passed with both Republican and Democrat components. The good Senator 
from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli --and there are a number of Senators on 
the other side of the aisle--a good number--who want this legislation 
passed; 70 percent of it has now been designed by the other side of the 
aisle. They want to get to the substance of the education debate--the 
good Senator from Illinois. If we can get to the debate, it is going to 
have a chance. That is an education proposal. We handle it our way; 
they handle it their way. We will debate it. But what we are saying is, 
there ought to be a debate on education. We have spent an inordinate 
amount of time avoiding the debate.
  Mr. President, I presume my time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator presumes incorrectly. He has 1 
minute and 15 seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In deference to my colleagues, I yield my time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII, 
the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provision of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 2646, the 
     A+ Education Act:
         Trent Lott, Paul Coverdell, Jeff Sessions, Connie Mack, 
           Bill Roth, Judd Gregg, Christopher Bond, Tim 
           Hutchinson, Larry E. Craig, Robert F. Bennett, Mike 
           DeWine, Jim Inhofe, Bill Frist, Bob Smith, Wayne 
           Allard, Pat Roberts.


                            Call of the Roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call under 
the rule has been waived.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on H.R. 2646, the A+ Education Act, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________