[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3321-S3331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 2646, the Education Savings Act for Public 
and Private Schools.
  The clerk will report the bill.
  The legislative 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.
  Pending:

       Mack/D'Amato amendment No. 2288, to provide incentives for 
     States to establish and administer periodic teacher testing 
     and merit pay programs for elementary and secondary school 
     teachers.
       Glenn amendment No. 2017, to delete education IRA. 
     expenditures for elementary and secondary school expenses.
       Kennedy amendment No. 2289, to authorize funds to provide 
     an additional 100,000 elementary and secondary school 
     teachers annually to the national pool of such teachers 
     during the 10-year period beginning with 1999 through a new 
     student loan forgiveness program.
       Coverdell (for Hutchison) amendment No. 2291, to establish 
     education reform projects that provide same gender schools 
     and classrooms, as long as comparable educational 
     opportunities are offered for students of both sexes.


                           Amendment No. 2289

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is a motion to table the 
amendment to H.R. 2646 by the Senator from Massachusetts. There will be 
4 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Who seeks time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the issue that is before the Senate now 
is whether we are going to take the $1.6 billion and use it in such a 
way that is going to effectively help and assist the private schools--
because that is where the majority of the money is going to be 
invested--or whether we are prepared to invest that money to increase 
the total number of teachers.
  Again, Mr. President, the legislation that we have before us this 
morning will provide $1.6 billion. We have to decide whether we are 
going to use that money to create an IRA which will be primarily used 
to support private schools, or whether we will take that $1.6 billion 
and use to it create more teachers across this country. If we use the 
$1.6 billion, we will provide 100,000 new schoolteachers for the public 
schools across this Nation.
  It is estimated that we are going to need 2 million new high school 
teachers. This will at least provide 100,000. It seems to me that if we 
are interested in academic achievement and accomplishment and we 
support our public schools, then getting highly qualified teachers to 
invest in those schools is the way to go. That is what this amendment 
does. It takes the $1.6 billion and uses it to create 100,000 more 
schoolteachers rather than to use it to create additional funds to 
support private schools.
  We have a modest program in our higher education bill that will 
provide $200 million for 5 years, which is $40 million a year. That is 
bipartisan. I support it. But it is not enough. We have a major 
opportunity now to do something significantly for the public schools, 
and that is to increase the number of qualified teachers who will serve 
in our public schools.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first, I am pleased that we are finally 
coming to a point where we can vote on these core issues. I have three 
things to say about the statements that have been made by the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first, the Labor Committee has already 
addressed the issue of new teachers and done it in a more expeditious 
manner focusing new teachers on inner-city schools.
  Second, the effect of the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts 
is to gut and make moot the entire exercise we have been at here now 
for 6 months. He would in effect deny 14 million families and 20 
million children the benefits of education savings accounts, the 
majority of which are public, not private. He would deny 1 million 
employees the opportunity for continuing education and 1 million 
students the opportunity and benefit of State prepaid tuition plans and 
500 new schools through new school construction.
  Later in the debate we will have another opportunity, through the 
Gorton amendment, which will be discussed later this afternoon, to free 
up from Federal regulation large sums of money, over $10 billion, which 
local communities and States can use to address teacher shortages, if 
indeed they have them.

[[Page S3322]]

  I conclude by saying the effect of the amendment would be to make 
moot this 6-month debate.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Kennedy's 
amendment to the Coverdell bill, which would provide loan forgiveness 
to teachers in high need areas and subjects. Attracting well qualified 
teachers through the use of loan forgiveness is a terrific idea and one 
that I've introduced and supported in the context of the reauthorized 
Higher Education Act. Loan forgiveness for teachers ensures that 
teachers are not saddled by excessive debt during their first crucial 
years of teaching.
  Just two days ago, a new report from the American Federation of 
Teachers on teacher salaries showed that, in part due to the low 
unemployment and tight labor market of recent months, teacher salaries 
are falling behind wages for other occupations and will make it even 
harder for schools to find qualified candidates.
  Given all the other jobs that may be available, we as a nation have a 
serious problem in recruiting strong candidates for teaching. Clearly, 
loan forgiveness needs to be part of a comprehensive strategy to raise 
the quality of teachers and attract the best candidates to the 
classroom.
  To help attract more teachers, this amendment proposes to provide up 
to $8,000 in loan forgiveness to teachers in high need areas or 
subjects, as determined by local school districts. While I strongly 
support the amendment and its intention, there are two issues that are 
worth raising. One is that the criteria for eligibility are too broad, 
especially given the amount of money associated with the legislation. 
More importantly, however, the amendment does not address the basic 
issue of teacher quality outlined in the findings that preface the 
legislation. I believe that, in order to be qualified to teach a 
subject area, particularly on the secondary level, a teacher should 
have a major in that subject or a related field.
  According to a recently completed analysis of state-level student 
achievement data, states with more teachers holding full certification 
plus a major in their field do significantly better on National 
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and math 
examinations. Students of teachers who completed undergraduate academic 
majors and appropriate professional coursework achieve better than age 
peers whose teachers completed education majors, no matter how poor, 
what their ethnicity, or whether English is a second language.
  For these reasons, I am glad to be working with Senator Kennedy on 
efforts to raise the quality of teaching in our classrooms and reduce 
the financial burden on those who have entered this essential 
profession. If we expect higher standards from students, we need to 
provide them with teachers who have the documented content area 
preparation to help them meet those standards.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment to increase the nation's supply of qualified teachers. 
Investing in teachers is an investment in our children, an investment 
in the future, and an investment in America. If students in communities 
across the country are to be prepared to compete in the global 
marketplace, we must attract and retain the best and the brightest 
teachers.
  We know that having a qualified teacher in the classroom is one of 
the most important influences on a child's academic success. Yet too 
many schools are already understaffed. During the next decade, rising 
student enrollments and massive teacher retirements mean that the 
nation will need to hire 2 million new teachers. According to the 
National Center for Education Statistics, between one-third and one-
half of all elementary and secondary school teachers are 45 years old 
or older. The national average age of teachers is 43 years old. The 
average age of Massachusetts teachers is 46 years old--tying the 
District of Columbia for having the oldest teachers in the Nation.
  Boston alone expects almost half of the city's teachers to retire 
over the next decade. In addition, Boston already has acute teacher 
shortages in areas such as bilingual education and high school science. 
At the same time, Boston's student enrollment is growing by 900 
students a year.
  The teacher shortage has forced school districts to hire more than 
50,000 under-prepared teachers each year, and to ask certified teachers 
to teach outside their area of expertise. One in four new teachers does 
not fully meet state certification requirements.
  We need to do more--much more--to assure that quality teachers are 
available for each and every child and classroom.
  This amendment provides for the forgiveness of federal student loans 
as an incentive to college students to become teachers. We know that 
qualified young men and women can often make more money in private 
industry. Many of them, burdened with heavy undergraduate and graduate 
debts from student loans, refuse to even consider teaching as their 
career. Reducing the burden of their debt can be a significant 
incentive to encourage them to become teachers, and to agree to teach 
in areas where the need is greatest.
  Attracting more qualified teachers to the teaching field over the 
next ten years will help to address teacher shortages across the 
country and improve student achievement. This amendment will move us 
closer to that goal.
  The Labor Committee has recommended a similar provision as part of 
the Higher Education Act Amendment. But it is entirely appropriate to 
consider this here as part of the pending bill as well.
  Our goal is to recruit 100,000 additional teachers over the next 10 
years, especially in high-need subjects such as math and science.
  We should be doing all we can to encourage good students to become 
good teachers. It is one of our highest priorities in education. I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment to help us meet that goal.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Inouye
     Moynihan
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2289) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly explain my vote on 
the motion to table the amendment offered by my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Kennedy, to H.R. 2646, the Education Savings Act for 
Public and Private Schools. Despite my support for excellence in 
teaching and the need for more teachers--high-quality teachers--in the 
classrooms across America, I voted in favor of tabling the amendment.
  Like many of my colleagues, I realize the importance of quality 
teachers in our nation's elementary and secondary

[[Page S3323]]

schools. I started out in a modest two-room schoolhouse where I did not 
have high-technology equipment or much money for supplies, but what I 
did have were dedicated teachers who really cared about my future and 
my education. Today, our children and grandchildren are being taught 
mathematics by teachers who have no background whatsoever in the 
subject area--none at all! There are situations in which teachers who 
have been trained to teach physical science instead find themselves 
teaching mathematics! That is not right, and not fair to the teacher 
or--more importantly--to the students.
  This amendment would provide a maximum of $8,000 of loan forgiveness 
over a five-year period to graduate students entering the teaching 
profession. Given the rising costs associated with a higher education, 
this certainly does not amount to much in the eyes of a student faced 
with loans totaling $50,000 or more. Nor does such an incentive help to 
bring in more teachers in demand subject areas, such as mathematics.
  Mr. President, the issue and need is for more qualified teachers, not 
just more teachers. Teaching is a profession for which one must have a 
true passion as well as dedication and talent. As Aristotle stated so 
eloquently in his day,

       Teachers who educated children deserved more honour than 
     parents who merely gave them birth; for bare life is 
     furnished by the one, the other ensures a good life.

  This amendment does not ensure that quality teachers will be brought 
into the classrooms. While ostensibly a targeted amendment designed to 
help provide better teachers for Title I schools and those schools 
which lack quality teachers in core subject areas, it would cover over 
ninety percent of all schools. Over ninety percent, Mr. President. I do 
not call this targeted.
  While I support the amendment in principle, I believe that it is an 
unfocused proposal at best. The amendment relies heavily on the hope 
that limited student loan forgiveness will serve as incentive for 
graduate students to opt into a teaching profession in lieu of a higher 
paying job. Furthermore, it does not target the schools which are truly 
in need of better quality teachers, nor does it ensure that it will be 
quality teachers in the needed subject areas who make their way into 
the classrooms. For these reasons, Mr. President, I have voted to table 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 2291 by 
the Senator from Texas to H.R. 2646. There will be 30 minutes of debate 
equally divided.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
scheduled for 2:15 today now be postponed to occur at 2:30 with all 
other parameters of the consent agreement in status quo. I further ask 
unanimous consent that following those votes, Senator Moseley-Braun be 
recognized to offer her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the pending business is the Hutchison 
amendment. However, the Senator from Massachusetts has a short comment 
to make, as does the Senator from Missouri. I believe Senator Hutchison 
has agreed to that. So they will make the appropriate motion to set the 
amendment aside for a moment.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 
not to exceed 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I just wanted to explain with respect to my 
vote cast on the Coverdell amendment that I respect the notion that 
having a savings account is not a bad one. I want to compliment the 
Senator from Georgia for his efforts to create it. The problem is that 
the numbers I have received from CBO and elsewhere on the distribution 
create problems, in my judgment, in terms of fairness of that 
distribution.
  Secondly, because of the low-income reach of some of it, there are 
difficulties in the takeup on the available tax benefit as to whether 
or not it will really reach education.
  And thirdly and most important of all, I think that to address the 
question of trying to improve people's opportunities for schools in a 
vacuum, not to include it in the context of the place where 90 percent 
of our children are going to school, which is the public school system, 
is a mistake. Every time we come at it in one of these marginal efforts 
that, in a sense, gives people an opportunity to make a choice in one 
component but we do not address it with respect to the school system as 
a whole, we are diminishing the opportunities for that other 90 
percent, which now may become 88 percent, but it is still the vast 
majority of America's schoolchildren.
  For that reason, while I compliment the Senator in addressing the 
question of savings accounts and choice--which I think is a critical 
element of the larger reform--we ought to be doing it in the context of 
a broad reform. I think until we do that, these kinds of efforts can 
actually wind up being harmful, well-intentioned as they are.
  I thank my colleague for permitting me the time to make my 
explanation and my vote. I yield the remainder of my time.


                           Amendment No. 2291

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The pending question is 
amendment 2291 by the Senator from Texas to H.R. 2646. There will be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to be notified at least 4 
minutes before the end of my 15-minute allocation, with the intention 
of giving 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia to argue in favor, and 
then I want to reserve the remainder of my time for the end of the 
debate following any debate opposing my amendment.
  My amendment simply seeks to give the opportunity to public schools 
what private schools can now do, and that is offer an option of same-
gender classes or schools. I seek to amend the allowable uses of title 
VI funds for education reform projects that provide same-gender schools 
and classrooms as long as comparable educational opportunities are 
offered for students of both sexes.
  Mr. President, title VI is the place in our education code providing 
for reform of education to create new and innovative programs to try to 
improve our public education opportunities in this country.
  I am offering this amendment to remove a cloud of doubt hanging over 
the education community about the Federal policy on whether we allow a 
local decision by a local public school district to operate same-gender 
schools and classrooms.
  The amendment is very simple. It adds the establishment and operation 
of same-gender schools and classes to the allowable uses for funds 
under title VI. It is not a mandate; it is an option. The title VI 
program is so broad and flexible that I believe it already allows same-
gender education programs. But due largely to the fear that many 
schools throughout our country have, believing that the Education 
Department's Office for Civil Rights would not allow same-gender 
education efforts, most States and school districts are reluctant to 
use their own money, much less Federal money, for these purposes. This 
is unfortunate.
  Ask almost any student or graduate of a same-gender school, most of 
whom are from private and parochial schools, and they will almost 
always tell you that they were enriched and strengthened by the 
experience. Surveys and studies of students show that both boys and 
girls enrolled in same-gender programs tend to be more competent, more 
focused on their studies, and ultimately more successful in school as 
well as later in their careers. We are talking here about K through 12. 
Specifically, girls report being more willing to participate in class 
and to take difficult math and science classes that they otherwise 
would not have attempted. Boys also report less pressure of being put 
down by their classmates for wanting to participate in class and excel 
at their studies. Both sexes report feeling more of a camaraderie and

[[Page S3324]]

sense of peer and teacher support than they do when they are in a coed 
environment. Teachers, too, report fewer control and discipline 
problems, something almost any teacher will tell you can consume a good 
part of class time.
  Inevitably, these positive student attitudes translate into academic 
results. Study after study shows that girls and boys in same-gender 
classes, on average, are academically more successful and ambitious 
than their coed counterparts.
  I also note that a recent well-publicized report by the American 
Association of University Women did not so much challenge the 
demonstrated benefits of same-gender schools as it called to implement 
these benefits into coed classrooms. That is exactly the point. For 
many students, the same-gender schools and classrooms is the most 
conducive environment for success, precisely because they are same 
gender. No one would dispute that schools and teachers should strive to 
maintain order, academic rigor, and treat boys and girls equally. The 
fact is that in some cases this tends to be easier in a same-gender 
environment.
  Same-gender education has benefited students like Cyndee Couch, a 
seventh grader at Young Women's Leadership school in East Harlem. 
Cyndee and the other students at this all-girls school, located in a 
low-income, predominantly African American and Hispanic section of New 
York City, have an attendance rate of 91.8 percent--significantly above 
the New York City average. They also score higher on math and science 
exams than the city average. In fact, 90 percent of the school's 
students recently scored at or above the grade level on the 
standardized public school math problem solving test. The citywide 
average was only 50 percent.

  Last year, Cyndee bravely appeared on the television show ``60 
Minutes'' to talk about why she likes the all-girl public school. She 
told host Morley Safer, ``As long as I'm in this school and I'm 
learning and no boys are allowed in the school, I think everything is 
going to be OK.''
  Unfortunately for Cyndee and for other students in fledgling same-
gender public school programs around the country, everything is not OK. 
Opponents of same-gender education have sued to shut down the Young 
Women's Leadership school and other schools like it around the country. 
Mr. President, I can't imagine why they would do this. Why would they 
take away this option for parents in East Harlem of New York City? When 
they can't choose the environment that they find is more supportive and 
conducive to learning for their children, what are their options? Whose 
civil rights are being violated when parents and their children 
voluntarily enroll in same-gender programs in the hope that they will 
be able to get a better education and have a better chance at success 
in life? Who is harmed by that?
  Mr. President, many of our Nation's public schools are failing in 
their jobs to adequately prepare our young people for the challenges 
that face them. After decades of rhetoric about who is to blame for 
this failure, it is time to stop talking and give more options. We need 
to find out what works and use it. For many students, same-gender 
education works. It is certainly not the only answer to our public 
school woes, but it is one solution that should not be left out of the 
equation.
  We are adding to the list of choices. We are not mandating anything. 
In education, one-size-fits-all is simply not going to work. We have to 
allow our local schools to have all the choices that can best fit the 
individual students in their school districts.
  Some opponents of same gender education may also try to claim that it 
violates title IX of the Civil Rights Act or the equal protection 
clause of the Constitution. Both of those arguments are erroneous. 
Title IX was passed as part of the Education Amendment of 1972. It 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at any school receiving 
Federal financial assistance. Title IX was never intended to prohibit 
same-gender K-12 education. In fact, with regard to admissions, the 
language of title IX applies only to higher education institutions that 
were not same-gender at the time of passage of the provision and to 
vocational and professional institutions. An earlier version of title 
IX that would have prohibited same-gender admissions policies, K-12, 
was specifically defeated in Congress.
  The language of title IX as well as subsequent judicial 
interpretations of title IX make it clear that the law does not 
prohibit same-gender schools. What, then, about same-gender classrooms 
located at coed schools? Are they prohibited by title IX? The answer 
again is no. The overriding purpose and intent of title IX is to 
prohibit discrimination against individuals because of their sex, not 
to erase any consideration of the different educational needs of boys 
and girls. There simply is no discrimination if comparable educational 
opportunities are afforded to each sex, as my amendment requires.
  Indeed, title IX itself recognizes a number of gender differences in 
allowing separate programs for physical education, organized sports, 
and sex education. Even the Department of Education sees same-gender 
classrooms as acceptable if the school is able to come up with a 
sufficiently convincing argument that it is doing so to overcome some 
past discrimination against one sex or the other with regard to that 
course offering, even though no such proof of past discrimination is 
required by the language of title IX.
  I believe the only justification that schools should need to have to 
institute a single-sex classroom or school is that the school and the 
parents believe it will provide a better educational opportunity for 
the parents and children who choose the option. This reflects both the 
language and the intent of title IX, and what we would do today with 
this amendment is clarify that that is the will of Congress.
  Mr. President, I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia, 
after which I will reserve my final 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Texas. Federal funding should not 
discriminate in favor of same-sex education. Currently, it does.
  Same-gender schools boast years of success. Studies have shown that 
single-gender education worked well in the inner city. Seventh graders 
who had attended Malcolm X Academy in Detroit, MI --an all-boys inner-
city school--had the highest math scores among 77 Detroit schools and 
the second highest in Michigan among 780 schools. Cornelius Riordan, a 
professor at Providence University, found that African American and 
Hispanic students in single-gender schools outperform their coed peers 
by nearly a grade level.
  This proposal simply rights a wrong without increasing burdens on the 
taxpayers. Right now, neither IX nor the equal protection clause 
prohibits single-sex schools. This is another example of how one size 
does not fit all. Parents and children should have the choice of 
single-sex education in public schools. As I said, I support the 
excellent work and the amendment offered by Senator Hutchison of Texas.
  I yield back to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to reserve the balance of 
my time for after any opponents who might appear.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my intention to finish the use 
of my time. I understand there will be no one speaking against it at 
this time. So we will close out this debate and go to the next 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I just want to speak to the last point, which is the 
concern about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the 
Constitution. The Supreme Court recently struck down the all-male 
admission policy of Virginia Military Academy on the grounds that it 
violated equal protection for female applicants because Virginia did 
not meet the constitutional requirement that there be a comparable 
facility for women.

[[Page S3325]]

  My amendment clearly requires that there be comparable opportunities 
for both sexes. Mr. President, we are meeting the constitutional test 
of the 14th amendment. We are meeting the constitutional test of equal 
protection, and we are meeting the definition of title IX, and we are 
adding an option to title VI.
  In short, what we are trying to do is say that the parents of 
children who go to public schools should have the option--not any kind 
of mandate, but the option--in grades K through 12 to allow same-gender 
classes or same-gender schools to be offered in their school districts.
  We believe that for some children it is proven that they can excel 
academically in the lower grades when they are in a same-gender 
environment. This has been proven with both boys and girls. Why not 
allow our public schoolchildren to have the same opportunities that 
parents could choose if they could afford to send their children to 
private schools? Why not say our education system is failing and the 
way we are going to improve it and tailor it to individual boys and 
girls in this country so that they can meet their full potential with 
the best education that they can receive is to allow more options for 
our public schools?
  I believe these options are available now. But because it is not 
absolutely clear, many public schools are afraid to go forward for fear 
they might be sued to shut down, which is exactly what is happening to 
the Young Women's Leadership School in East Harlem that is showing 
nothing but success. Someone has come in to sue and to say that this 
violates the Constitution. I argue that it doesn't violate the 
Constitution; it is required by our Constitution to give our children 
in our public schools the same opportunities that a child going to 
private school would have. Let's improve the education system and vote 
for this amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time 
be yielded on the Hutchinson amendment No. 2291, and that a vote occur 
on or in relation to that amendment immediately following the two 
previously scheduled votes at 2:30. I further ask unanimous consent 
that no amendments be in order to amendment No. 2291 and, finally, that 
Senator Moseley-Braun be recognized to offer her amendment following 
those votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided between each of the stacked votes at 
2:30 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that 
general debate be in order to the pending legislation until the hour of 
12:30 today with the time equally divided in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to express my strong 
support for the Parent and Student Savings Account Act, or PASS Act, of 
which I am a cosponsor. I have listened over the last few weeks to the 
debate on this issue. It is about things bigger than just the Coverdell 
bill. It is about the philosophy of education in America. I am 
constantly astonished that the Coverdell bill has so exercised so many 
of my colleagues. I question why this is such a big deal.
  The Coverdell bill is part of an overall philosophy about education. 
Yes; our future is our children, and our children's future is 
education. But this Coverdell bill should be part of the national 
debate about where we take education into the next century--this new, 
bold, dynamic competitive new century. For the first time we will ask 
our young people to compete in a new, competitive, international world.
  After all, Mr. President, what is education about? What is education 
really about? It is not about debating amendments on the floor of the 
Senate. It should not be about whose money it is, or whose money it is 
not, nor about bureaucracy. It should be about our young people. It 
should be about educating our young people so that they are prepared to 
compete in this brave new world--this world full of immense 
opportunities. But there will not be opportunities if we do not prepare 
our young people to negotiate this new world.
  Education is about something else. It is not just about science and 
math, and reading and writing--yes, that is important--and economics, 
history, and geography. It is also about developing young people so 
that we are producing happy, productive citizens--happy, productive 
citizens so that they, too, might contribute to our society and to our 
culture. But ignorance is the great enemy to productivity and to 
secure, happy lives. It is all connected. It is all connected.
  If in fact you believe, as I do, that the Federal Government does not 
belong in education--in fact, if we will roll this back 200 years, you 
show me in the Constitution of the United States, or show me anywhere, 
where the Federal Government has the responsibility to educate our 
young people. It does not. It can't. We are overloading our circuits. 
We are overloading our system. We are asking the Government to do 
things that Government can't possibly do. Therefore, as we have done 
over the last 30 years, there has been a breakdown in confidence in our 
country and in government at every level, but especially Government at 
the Federal level.
  What do we do about it? Let's step back for a moment and pause and be 
unemotional and sort this out. We sort it out this way. Who has the 
most to win or lose when it comes to education of our young people? Of 
course, the parents are the ones who care the most, and who should care 
the most. The parents are the connecting rod for our children in every 
facet and every aspect of our children's lives. Who also cares about 
our students and about their education? Teachers. Revelation--
teachers--parents and teachers.
  So we have a good combination going on here--not the Government, not 
the Federal Government, not the Department of Education, not the 
President, not Senator Hagel nor Senator Coverdell. Education belongs 
at the local level because that is where the issue is. This is not 
about books and textbooks, numbers, frogs, dissecting, and biology 
class. It is about people. It is about young people. It is about their 
lives. It is about the strains and stresses of young people. We have 
all been through it.
  What is wrong with examining in some detail, as we are doing, the 
Coverdell bill? What is wrong with actually allowing parents to put 
aside after-tax income? By the way, after-tax income is not costing the 
public schools a dime. It is not costing the public schools a dime. We 
are allowing the parents who have the most to win or lose by the 
education of their children an opportunity to take their own money that 
they work for after they have paid their taxes and put it into a 
savings account. It is the same thing that we did last year. My 
goodness, President Clinton had a Rose Garden ceremony. He took great 
credit for allowing our parents to have education savings accounts to 
educate our children after they are out of high school.
  All this does is allow the same parents to set aside money to help 
educate their children in K through 12. That is all we are doing here. 
We are not really breaking any new ground. What is so wrong with that? 
What is wrong with that concept? This Senator from the State of 
Nebraska doesn't think there is anything wrong with it. As a matter of 
fact, we need more of that. We need more. We need less government 
influence and more local parent-teacher influence in education.
  So much misinformation has been spread around on this issue. We 
should set the record straight. As I said, this does not inhibit, 
damage, nor affect public schools adversely at all. As a matter of 
fact, it helps public schools

[[Page S3326]]

because the parents who set up the savings account can draw from that 
savings account to help their students and their children if they are 
in public school just as if they are in private school. Those moneys 
can be used for transportation, tutors, equipment, supplies, tuition--
anything that helps the student learn. After all, Mr. President, isn't 
that what this debate should be about? It shouldn't be about defending 
turf. It shouldn't be about, ``Gee, I do not want to give that program 
up.'' It should be allowing the parents to have as much direct 
influence and responsibility, as well as teachers, as well as the local 
school board, the city, the county and State, in how our young people 
are educated.
  That is what this debate is about. As we work our way through this 
Coverdell bill, expanding on what we already did last year in setting 
up education savings accounts, it should be a national debate, and it 
should reside in the arena of a philosophy about education.
  I would also point out that in the more than 200-year history of this 
country, there is one point that has been unmistakably clear. And I go 
back to an earlier point I made. Governments do not change behavior. 
Young people are formed from the inside out. Young people are not 
formed from the outside in. Young people are formed from their parents, 
their religious mentors, their religion, their teachers, their coaches, 
and private voluntary organizations like Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts.
  That is how young people are taught. That is how they develop 
standards. That is how they develop expectations and understand values. 
That is what this debate is about. I hope we can focus on what is 
really important here, and that is helping our parents and our teachers 
help our students learn, to prepare them for a hopeful, happy, 
productive educated life. Only then can this great Nation not only 
survive but be dominant well into the next century, a nation which has 
produced so much good not only in this country but in the world.
  Think of what this country through freedom of expression, individual 
liberty, and our educational system has done for the world. That is our 
charge in this body. That is our responsibility--to assure that the 
next generations not only have the same opportunities but better 
opportunities and are better prepared than we were. The Coverdell bill 
is one way to help us get there.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 23 minutes under 
his control and 32 minutes on the other side.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for 
his passion on behalf of reform, breaking the status quo, not only on 
this but so many issues. I very much appreciate the comments that were 
made in the name of changing this system so that we can start turning 
around this horrible data we are receiving from our kindergarten 
through high school classes. We cannot prepare for the new century in 
this vein. Change has to occur. I appreciate very much the comments 
made by the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the 
time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to oppose the anti-
education Republican tax bill. Improving education can and must be a 
top priority for Congress and the Nation, but this Republican bill 
flunks the test. They call it the A+ bill, but it is anti-education and 
deserves an F. This Republican bill and its proposed Republican 
amendments are bad tax policy and bad education policy, and it clearly 
deserves the veto that President Clinton has pledged to give it.
  It is the Nation's public schools that need help. So what do our 
Republican friends do? They propose legislation to aid private schools. 
That makes no sense at all. Our goal is to strengthen public schools, 
not abandon them. Our goal is to help all children get a good 
education, not just the ones with wealthy parents. It is clear that our 
Republican friends are no friends of public schools. They have an anti-
education agenda. They want tax breaks for the wealthy who send their 
children to private schools.
  The underlying bill uses tax breaks to subsidize parents to send 
their children to private schools, and it is a serious mistake. It 
diverts scarce resources away from public schools that have the 
greatest need. The regressive Republican tax bill does nothing to 
improve public schools--it does nothing to improve public schools. It 
does nothing to address the serious need of public schools to build new 
facilities and repair the existing crumbling facilities.
  This afternoon, we will have the excellent amendment of the Senator 
from Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun, who has really been the leader in 
this body and in the country in recognizing the challenges that so many 
of our schools are facing. They are old and crumbling, and we need to 
modernize them.
  It is a powerful amendment because the amendment says we are prepared 
to put resources to reconstruct our schools, but it also has a 
subliminal message, and that is that we want our children to go into 
the best facilities. If we say to the young people of this Nation that 
education is a priority, and day after day they go to dilapidated 
schools or schools that have leaky ceilings or the windows are broken 
or they have inadequate facilities, we are sending a message to 
children that they are not a priority in this country and that 
education is not a priority.
  When we ask our children to spend the time to do the hard and 
difficult work to master subject matters, they have to really wonder 
whether the message that is coming from an older generation has much 
merit. That is why the amendment of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun is so 
important and why I think all of us are very hopeful that we can attain 
the objectives of that amendment and see that amendment approved.
  I know she will have an opportunity to go into very considerable 
detail about the General Accounting Office study of the schools across 
the Nation. It estimates that $110 billion is needed to invest in our 
schools in order to bring them up to satisfactory condition. Her 
amendment is much more modest, but it is an important amendment, and it 
is one that deserves the support of all of us who are interested in 
making sure that at least the physical facilities are going to be first 
rate for the future generations of children. It just makes common 
sense.

  In many of our communities, particularly older communities, whether 
it is in urban areas or rural communities, they just don't have the 
wherewithal to do that. But the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, 
Carol Moseley-Braun, provides some help and assistance in providing 
interest-free loans to those communities so that they can themselves 
make the judgment, make the determination, but they will get some help 
and assistance in terms of borrowing those funds interest free.
  It makes a great deal of sense. I think we will have an alternative 
and an opportunity to say whether that amendment is really where we 
want to go or, on the other hand, if we want to continue with the 
Republican proposal that will provide just some tax benefits for a 
certain group of Americans who are going to use those tax benefits to 
benefit children attending the private schools. That is going to be a 
very, very important debate and one where I hope our colleagues will 
find compelling reasons to support that amendment.
  Second, Mr. President, the underlying Coverdell proposal does nothing 
to reduce the class size in our schools. I don't know how many more 
hearings we have to have in our education committee and how many other 
examinations of what is happening in a number of different States--in 
Kentucky and in many other communities across this country--to 
understand that when you have too many children in the class--

[[Page S3327]]

you may have teachers who are able to handle it and do it very well, 
and we take our hats off to them--but when you are talking about having 
classes with 30 students, 25 students, 20 students, you are talking 
about an enormous demand on the teacher and also inappropriate lack of 
attention for the students. We will also have an opportunity to vote on 
that later in the course of this debate. That can make a major 
difference in helping and assisting local communities in having reduced 
class sizes. That, I think, is a higher priority than, again, providing 
the tax benefits for those who want to use those for private schools.
  This underlying proposal does nothing to provide qualified teachers 
in more classrooms across the Nation. We had an opportunity to address 
that briefly in our debate earlier today. It was turned down. I welcome 
the fact that we had 41 Senators who supported our proposal that said, 
if we are going to spend $1.6 billion in education, let us make the 
decision that we want to invest it in more teachers for the 4 million 
additional children who are going to be attending our public school 
system, to help meet the gap, which we recognize is 2 million teachers 
that we are going to need for our public schools over the next 10 
years; let us at least have 100,000 new, well-qualified teachers to 
teach in those schools. That is a preferable way of spending $1.6 
billion rather than, again, spending this as a tax break, as a new 
entitlement--a new entitlement program--that is going to benefit, 
again, those who send their children to private schools.
  It does nothing in this underlying amendment to help children reach 
high academic standards. I don't, again, know how many hours of 
hearings we have to have to say that children respond best when they 
are challenged. Most of us as human beings do. Our Nation does. It 
always has at a time of its greatest need. We should challenge children 
to raise the bar, rather than teaching down to them. We should create 
higher academic standards. We ought to be doing that.

  There is nothing in this legislation that will do anything like that 
for the public schools in this country. It does nothing to provide 
afterschool activities to keep kids off the street, away from drugs, 
and out of trouble. We know the value of afterschool programs.
  We have some 5 million children in our country who this afternoon at 
2 or 2:30 will go home to empty houses. They will be told by their 
parents, ``Look, maybe have a little snack, and if you have to watch 
television, watch television on X station; try and get your homework 
done.'' But we know what happens in those circumstances. Too many of 
those children who are left alone, unsupervised, more often than not 
will find that the temptations of getting into trouble are increased 
dramatically.
  This is not just a diversion from education, but it also has an 
important impact in terms of crime in our local communities.
  A city that has made about as much progress as any city in this 
country is my city of Boston. It has gone 2 years and 4 months without 
a single youth homicide. And if you ask Paul Evans, who is the 
commissioner of the police department in Boston, MA, he will say, yes, 
dealing in an appropriate way with gangs, that is No. 1. No. 2, tracing 
various weapons that are used in gangs. But No. 3, afterschool 
programs. Afterschool programs keep kids out of trouble. That is very, 
very important.
  Is there anything with the $1.6 billion that is being recommended on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate to try to develop programs that we know 
are tried and tested, that will provide an incentive for children to go 
to various community centers, to work with volunteers? The number of 
young people who are volunteering is increasing every single day to 
help children with their homework so that when they do go home and they 
see their parents, who have been working hard all day, they will have 
quality time with their parents rather than hearing from their parents, 
``Well, you ought to go upstairs and make sure you get your homework 
done.'' This is enormously important, and it is recognized by educators 
and those who are concerned about law enforcement across this 
country. There isn't a nickel in this program--not a nickel in this 
program--to try to address that particular issue.

  So, Mr. President, we know where these benefits are going to go. They 
are going to go to the individuals who are going to invest those 
benefits in the private schools rather than investing in our public 
schools.
  The challenge is clear. We must do all we can to improve teaching and 
learning for all of the students across the country. We must continue 
to support efforts to raise academic standards. We must test students 
early so we know where they need help in time to make that help 
effective. We must provide better training for current and new teachers 
so they are well-prepared to teach to higher standards.
  We must reduce class size to help students obtain the individual 
attention they need. We must provide afterschool programs to make 
constructive alternatives available to students. We must provide 
greater resources to modernize and expand the Nation's school buildings 
to meet the urgent needs of schools for up-to-date facilities. We 
cannot stand by and let regressive tax policy pass to help private 
schools at the expense of the public schools.
  In those items that I have just mentioned, every superintendent of 
schools, every schoolteacher, every department of education across this 
country would agree with those essential parts of a sound education 
program to help and assist the public schools in this country. Where in 
that list do we find ``Let's have tax breaks. Let's have the creation 
of a new entitlement. Let's create a new entitlement that is basically 
going to be used in order to support the private schools in this 
country''? It makes no sense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We cannot stand by and let this regressive tax policy 
pass to help private schools at the expense of public schools. Parents 
across the country want real solutions, not token gestures in the name 
of education. We should not waste $1.5 billion of public tax dollars on 
a do-nothing tax break program. So I hope my colleagues will join us in 
opposing this bill. We should do all we can to help the public schools 
and not abandon them.
  Finally, I just want to say that we will be under the close timeframe 
this afternoon, but I want to just add my strong support again to 
Senator Moseley-Braun's substitute for the Coverdell bill. It is well-
designed to help communities across the country to modernize, repair, 
and expand their school facilities.
  Schools across the Nation face the serious problem of overcrowding. 
Antiquated facilities are suffering from physical decay and are not 
equipped to handle the needs of modern education. Across the country, 
14 million children, in a third of the Nation's schools, are learning 
in substandard buildings. Half the schools have at least one 
unsatisfactory environmental condition. It would take over $100 billion 
just to repair the existing facilities.
  It is difficult enough to teach or learn in dilapidated classrooms 
but now, because of escalating enrollments, classrooms are increasingly 
overcrowded. The Nation will need 6,000 new schools in the next few 
years just to maintain the current class size given the expansion of 
the number of children who will be going to our schools.
  Democrats have made this a top priority to see that America has the 
best education system in the world. Providing safe and adequate school 
facilities is an important step towards meeting that goal.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that our Members will go and support the 
excellent amendment of the Senator from Illinois this afternoon and 
that it will be successful. It is far preferable to just providing a 
tax break for individuals who are going to use that to support the 
private schools.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 15 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GLENN. Thank you, Mr. President.

[[Page S3328]]

                           Amendment No. 2017

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I offered an amendment yesterday to the 
Coverdell educational IRA bill. The amendment I propose will simply 
delete the K-12--kindergarten through grade 12--expenses as an 
authorized deduction for education IRAs. The amendment will keep the 
increase in the annual allowable contribution from the current $500 to 
the maximum $2,000 a year. I think that is fine, that is good.
  But deleting K-12 and increasing the allowable contribution returns 
education IRAs to their original purpose of providing incentive savings 
incentives for higher education purposes. That is what the Federal 
Government has basically taken responsibility for through all the many 
years that we have been around here.
  We should be looking at this whole bill for what it is. It is tax 
support for private school education. I believe it is bad education 
policy. I believe it is bad tax policy. I also think it is probably 
going to pass. If it does, I think the President is going to veto it. 
He has indicated that that is his intention.
  If we look back to the days of our forefathers when people were 
coming to this country, they came here to have the opportunity for 
education. They were used to only the rich or--kids from the castle--
being able to have formal education.
  There were basically two kinds of people. There were the educated and 
the uneducated. And that is another way of saying there were the 
wealthy and the poor. That is what education was all about. It was to 
enable everybody to move up, to have a chance, to use their God-given 
talents and capabilities and their own desires to move ahead, to make a 
better life for themselves. And in this country, in the United States, 
we knew that if a democracy was to succeed--we did not want to return 
to serfdom, and rule by a few, and wealth for just a few--education was 
key to making a democracy succeed. It was not a choice in our 
democracy, it was a must, or our country was doomed.
  And the freedom to be educated, that most important freedom to be 
educated, spread to communities and States. And they all formed and 
supported public schools for all--for all--of our people. And that is 
the important thing we are addressing here today--education for all of 
our people. It was a requirement that we have minimum education.
  This is my 24th year as a U.S. Senator representing the people of 
Ohio. And in that time, I have seen many attempts to divert Federal 
funds from public to private education. The approaches to accomplish 
this goal have been many. We had tuition tax credits; we had the 
voucher system; school choice; now educational IRAs for elementary and 
secondary education.
  The Coverdell IRA, I believe, is a backdoor voucher that will do 
nothing to improve public schools for our public schoolchildren. That 
is the responsibility of Government. If other people want to take 
money, for whatever reason, whether it is religious or whether they 
just want a different school for their kids, whether they want all boys 
or all girls schools--that was a choice we did not deny. We did not say 
that we are going to Federally subsidize that kind of educational 
choice. And we should not be trying to do it now.
  The educational expenses that the Coverdell bill provides would 
include tuition and fees at public, private, and religious schools. The 
bill does not target needy families. And I believe here is one of the 
biggest reasons against what is being proposed here with the bill.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield for 
just one moment on an administrative matter.
  Mr. GLENN. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. We have concluded that following your remarks we would 
use the balance of the remaining time as in morning business. Both 
sides agreed to that. I just wanted to make it clear, because I will be 
leaving the floor. I ask unanimous consent for that.
  Mr. GLENN. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request to proceed 
to morning business after the Senator from Ohio completes his remarks?
  Mr. GLENN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the point I was going to make is this: 
Families in the top 20 percent of income distribution, would receive 70 
percent of the benefit of this bill--70 percent.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that more than half the 
savings would go to families whose children would attend private 
schools anyway. So 70 percent of the money, 70 percent of the benefit, 
is going to go to those who already are fully capable of sending their 
kids to private schools. So the bill subsidizes the savings and 
spending patterns that already exist.
  I do not think we should be heading back toward a bill that sends us 
back to the place where our forefathers started in Europe: where 
education is going to be best for the wealthy, where education is for 
those who have political connections, where education is available for 
the kids from the castle. That is not the way this country developed. 
Our country went ahead because we had programs that made education 
available for every single young person in this country--every single 
person. And that is what we should still be shooting for today.
  Cleveland, OH, has one of only two voucher programs in the country. 
The other is in Milwaukee. In Ohio, this program permits State funds to 
be used to send low-income children to private schools. It is the only 
program that allows the children to attend religious schools, parochial 
schools, with taxpayer funds. It is being challenged now before the 
Ohio State Supreme Court on that basis. It is funded at $12.5 million 
over 2 years. It is just finishing its second year right now, and 
results have been very spotty.

  As a matter of fact, there are other problems that have developed 
also. How about paying for taxicabs for the kids? They found out that 
the yellow schoolbuses that the school system depends on were not 
adequate to furnish the transportation for the young people that were 
going to be taking advantage of the voucher program. That wasn't 
foreseen. So student taxi rides account for more than half of the $4.8 
million deficit in Cleveland's 2-year-old school voucher program. It 
shows how an unintended consequence can take over in some instances. 
The voucher program had to turn to taxi firms and provide payments to 
parents in lieu of transportation services. That is half the funding.
  There is no strong evidence at the end of the second year of the 
program that the voucher program increases student achievement. We need 
to have a better understanding of what makes a school successful before 
we institute a program that benefits a comparatively few young people 
and takes money out of the public school system. That should be our 
major concern--our desire to have a good public school system.
  Strengthening public education in this country is something we have 
to do. It is necessary if we are going to be competitive in the 
economic future of this country. Only by making high-quality education 
available to all American children --not a favored few, but all 
American children--will we help develop the skills they need to find 
meaningful high-wage jobs, while developing a capable and productive 
work force that is essential, literally essential, to the economic 
future of this country in this new worldwide economic environment in 
which we live.
  Education reform is one of the top issues before the country now. It 
is talked about all over, in magazine articles, and is on the cover of 
magazines. One that I read last night talked about the education 
problem. That is why I continue to oppose attempts to encourage the use 
of Federal funds for nonpublic education, whether in the form of 
tuition tax credits or vouchers or school choice. I believe including K 
through 12 in educational IRAs is the first step toward establishing a 
permanent voucher system. It just bleeds off necessary money from the 
public schools.
  We have a public school system of education in this country that is 
available to all children. If this educational system is not producing 
the high level of achievement this Nation now needs, we can't abandon 
them, we can't say we will just take less money and put it in the 
public school system. We can't abandon them. That is why I support

[[Page S3329]]

the school construction amendment initiatives that will help reduce 
classroom size and directly benefit all our Nation's public schools by 
ensuring that all children attend safe and modern public schools. 
Senator Kennedy mentioned that a moment ago, and I agree with his 
remarks on that.
  I believe everyone should be saving for their children's education, 
but the difference between elementary and secondary education and 
higher education is important. Every child in this country is entitled 
to a free, appropriate, tuition-free education in every State. We have 
State laws in every State in our Union that require that. Higher 
education, going on to the college and university level, however, is 
optional and is tuition-based. It is hard for parents to save for 
college. I believe it is appropriate to provide incentives to help them 
do so. I have supported the prepaid tuition plans in the State of Ohio 
as a way that students can be assured of a quality education at one of 
Ohio's State universities or at one of their colleges there.
  The amendment which I am offering returns the educational IRA back to 
its original purpose--higher education expenses only. The only change I 
make is to keep the increase that is proposed in the contribution limit 
for education IRAs from $500 to $2,000. I think that is fine. This 
increase in the contribution will enable parents to save more per year 
for higher education. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this amendment.

  We have a lot of problems in this country. The old property tax that 
has been around for a long time is no longer adequate to do the job. It 
may have been OK back in the days of Jefferson and Washington when we 
didn't have NASDAQ, the American Stock Exchange and the New York Stock 
Exchange, mutual funds and so on. Most of the wealth at that time was 
in property, so a property tax was very appropriate to support the 
schools. Particularly over the last four or five decades we have now 
developed into being a service economy where two-thirds of our wealth, 
two-thirds of our national income, comes from the service industry. So 
the old property tax is no longer adequate to do our schools. We have 
to get away from that.
  Proposition 13 in California we are familiar with, did, in my view, 
wreck one of the finest education systems in the country. They are 
having a lot of problems that everybody else has around the country 
these days.
  We are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have 
a national education system. I am not here today to say we should go to 
a national education system. That would probably get me run down the 
front steps of the Capitol pretty fast. But we have to do more from the 
Federal level. We are only a tiny part of our K through 12 education. I 
think it is just around 5 percent now. Most of that is in school lunch 
programs and things like that and not directly on educational matters.
  Our system in this country, as Lester Thurow pointed out in his last 
couple of books, our system is basically run by 15,000 independent 
school boards all saying, ``We won't raise your taxes,'' and then they 
get together and decide what they will do in the local school 
districts. They get elected on ``we won't raise your taxes,'' ``We 
aren't going to vote on any other taxes; we will not raise your 
property taxes,'' so we at the Federal level are increasingly up 
against this as to what we should be doing.
  What we see is we are becoming gradually less competitive in a 
worldwide environment. We can't let that happen. The answer is not, as 
in this Coverdell bill, to say we will siphon money off from the public 
school system and give it over to the private school system in the form 
of vouchers or IRAs or whatever, take it out and put it over there, 
away from the public school system and support them less instead of 
more. That doesn't solve our problems in this country. So we do have 
some other problems. We have to address those, but not this way and not 
with this particular piece of legislation.
  I noted this morning in looking at the Los Angeles Times their lead 
editorial today was entitled ``Don't Drain Public Schools.'' I ask 
unanimous consent to have this printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GLENN. ``Don't Drain Public schools.'' That is exactly what we 
are talking about. We will drain public schools to the benefit of 
private schools, and 70 percent of the money will go to people already 
capable of providing, to the top 20 percent of the people already 
capable of providing for private schools for their kids if they want 
it.
  The insert in this article, and I will not read the complete article, 
the insert says, ``Washington should help address the education 
deficits in the Nation's public schools, but shifting even a small 
amount of tax money to private schools is not the answer, at least not 
yet.'' That about summarizes everything that I want to make a point of 
this morning.
  I think there is a vote on my amendment at 2:15 after our respective 
party caucuses. I hope people can think long and hard about this. I see 
this as a first step down a long slippery slope toward less and less 
support for our public school system, that which serves all America, 
that which enables people at the lowest level of economic advantage in 
this country to get opportunity through education and their own hard 
work to be a contributing member of society and make as much of a 
success of their lives as anybody else.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.

                               Exhibit 1

         [From the Los Angeles Times Editorials, Apr. 21, 1998]

                       Don't Drain Public Schools

       The White House and the Republican majority in Congress 
     both talk about how much they want to improve education in 
     the United States. But they have very different plans for 
     doing it. President Clinton speaks of more teachers, more 
     schools, more special programs and higher standards. 
     Republicans would rather offer a small monetary reward to 
     every parent who saves for educational expenses, including 
     tuition for non-public elementary or high schools. The White 
     House opposes this modest tax break because it would allow 
     the use of federal funds to subsidize private and parochial 
     schools. On this issue, Clinton is right.
       Improving public education has become a top political 
     priority from the District of Columbia, where public schools 
     are in dismal shape, to Los Angeles, with its overwhelmed 
     system and awful test scores. Washington should help address 
     the yawning educational deficits in the nation's public 
     schools, but shifting even a small amount of tax money to 
     private schools is not the answer--at least not yet.
       Clinton isn't personally against private schools; his 
     daughter graduated from one last year. But rather than 
     encourage an exodus from public schools at the expense of the 
     taxpayer, he says he wants to fix the public schools to serve 
     all children, including those whose parents cannot afford 
     private or parochial schools with or without a new education 
     savings account.
       Fixing the schools is a tall order, as residents of Los 
     Angeles know all too well, and parents can never be blamed 
     for wanting the best for their children. But most educators 
     and employers would agree that the White House is right.
       The House of Representatives has approved a GOP bill that 
     would create education savings accounts that work like 
     individual retirement accounts for parents of students in 
     kindergarten through 12th grade. Parents would be allowed to 
     save as much as $2,000 a year in a special account. The 
     interest would accrue tax-free, so long as the money was 
     withdrawn only for education purposes, including books, 
     computers, tutoring and, foremost, tuition. The Senate is 
     expected to take up its version of the bill this week.
       Though schools are traditionally a local responsibility, 
     Washington has been increasingly willing to help. That help 
     should be expanded, but care must be taken to avoid 
     undermining public education. America's great economic engine 
     was built on public schools that took all comers--poor, 
     working-class, middle-class and beyond--and that same mix 
     remains essential for a healthy educational system.
       Tax savings under the bill would, according to an analysis 
     by the Joint Tax Commission, average a paltry $7 to $37 a 
     year per family. But the principle is big.
       This national private-versus-public debate boils down to a 
     difference of priorities. Clinton's ambitious wish list, 
     unveiled during his State of the Union address, calls for 
     spending $12 billion over seven years to pay for 100,000 new 
     teachers, reducing class size to 18 students in the primary 
     grades and creating 50 ``education opportunity zones,'' 
     patterned after urban enterprise zones, in high-poverty 
     areas, plus funding to help build new schools. Republicans 
     favor initiatives that would allow more parents to remove 
     their children from public schools.
       Neither side can expect to prevail while a Democrat sits in 
     the White House and Republicans control Congress, but 
     irreconcilable differences should not be allowed to lead

[[Page S3330]]

     to gridlock. Both sides agree that something needs to be done 
     about public education.
       Public schools, especially in cities, are in trouble. But 
     there are promising reforms being tried, from a radical 
     public school choice program in Seattle to a mayoral takeover 
     in Chicago to L.A.'s focus on the 100 worst-performing 
     schools. Playing on the frustration of parents in a way that 
     undermines the whole system is not the cure.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I felt compelled, while I was in the 
chair in the last hour, to comment on the statements of the Senator 
from Massachusetts and the Senator from Ohio. I found it quite 
remarkable, sitting and listening to what was laid out, I think, 
somewhat factually about the problems we have in education, that the 
educational system is not meeting the needs of our country in providing 
good citizens, the education necessary to be good citizens, and the 
education necessary to perform needed functions in our economy.
  The response to the problem in education from the Senator who spoke, 
and from others who oppose this bill, is two things. I hear two things. 
One, we need more bricks and mortar. If we had better looking schools 
and more nicely appointed schools, or even better equipment, somehow 
the problem would go away. On top of that, we need more teachers. So if 
we just did more of the same, only did it better, with nicer buildings 
and more people, things would improve.
  I am not too sure that most Americans who are interfacing with the 
school systems in this country right now would accept that as the 
reasonable course, that what we need is just a few more teachers in the 
schools and better looking buildings. I have been to a lot of schools. 
I have been to about 120 public school districts in my State. I go to 
schools all the time. I spend a great deal of my time as I travel the 
State talking in the public schools. I have been to a few private 
schools, too. By and large, I would say that the public schools I went 
to were in much better condition than the parochial schools and private 
schools I went to. No comparison. Much better equipment, much more 
state-of-the-art, much better teacher ratios than the parochial schools 
I went to. So if the problem in the public schools was better buildings 
and more teachers, then the results that I would get in going to a 
public school in inner-city Pittsburgh, and one that is a parochial 
school, should be dramatically different based on this criterion that 
more teachers and nicer buildings make good school districts and 
educate children.
  In fact, the results are just the opposite. It is not bricks and 
mortar. It is not numbers of teachers. It is structure, it is 
discipline, it is order, and it is caring and concern, it is love, it 
is involvement--all of those intangible things that have to do with 
families and people who are committed to educating children. So what 
those of us on our side believe is the answer is not to pump more money 
into bricks and mortar and existing structures, but to pump more money 
into the people who make a real difference in children's lives, and 
that is families--families, who can help their children by assisting 
them with some resources, help them in their public or private or 
parochial education. That is just a fundamental difference as to what 
we believe works in education.
  I don't think that continuing to throw money at the system would 
work. This is truly remarkable. You would think this bill took money 
from the public schools. For the record, there is nothing in this bill 
that takes one dollar out of the Federal commitment to education. In 
fact, there is more money in this bill, but you would not know that. I 
have been here for the last hour and 15 minutes, and you would not know 
that by listening to the other side. You would think that this were 
stripping money out of Federal support for education in the public 
schools. That is not true. Not one penny. In fact, more money for 
school construction is in this bill. So there is not one dollar being 
taken away, not one dollar being diverted away. This is in fact ``new 
Federal support'' for education.

  Where is it going? It is going to families. This is sort of funny. I 
almost feel bad saying, ``Where is it going?'' ``To families.'' We are 
letting it stay there; we are just going to be benevolent enough to let 
them keep it if they do with it what we want them to do, which is to 
help support their children in education. It is saying that if you do 
what we want you to do with that money, we will let you keep it.
  It is very nice of us to do this, isn't it? It is sort of nice to 
come around and say we will let you keep the money if you do what we 
tell you. What the other side wants to do is say, ``No, we are not 
going to even let you have the choice to take that money. Excuse me, we 
are going to give it over here to build more schools and give it to 
more teachers.'' They say that is the problem, that we don't have nice 
schools and we don't have enough teachers.
  Again, I don't think too many people really believe that. What we 
want to do is get at the heart of the problem, which is to give parents 
the opportunity to educate their children, not to give schools more 
money.
  There is another remarkable thing here. When I say not to give 
schools more money, what we are talking about here with these A+ 
accounts is $100 million a year. You would think we were talking about 
huge amounts of money vis-a-vis what we spend on public education. We 
spend roughly one-quarter of a trillion dollars on public education per 
year. The Senator from Georgia told me that. This bill is $100 million 
per year. This is hardly a division plowing into the main line of the 
educational establishment; this is a sniper, at best, saying, ``Look, 
we are here.'' This is a very moderate, very modest proposal, to say: 
Let's allow families to have some choices here. We do a great job.
  This is another astounding thing. The amendment of the Senator from 
Ohio says that we should not allow this money to be used for K-12, let 
it be used for postsecondary education. I travel around the State of 
Pennsylvania a lot and around the country a little bit. I hear a lot of 
people complaining to me about the quality of K-12 education and the 
problems in primary and secondary education. I hear a lot of complaints 
about higher education, but it is not about quality. It is not about 
quality. It is somewhat about access and about costs, yes. But I think 
we are the envy of the world when it comes to colleges and universities 
and technical schools after primary and secondary school.
  Yet, what do we want to do? We want to put more money where there 
isn't a problem as far as quality and producing good products, and not 
put it into the area where people think the biggest problem exists. 
Now, I am telling you, if I were running a company and I had two 
divisions, one that was doing well producing good product and the other 
that was not, and someone came forth and said they thought we could 
change the system by which we produce this product, look at a different 
approach, because we have been trying this old approach now for decades 
and it just isn't keeping up with the requirements of the new age that 
is out there, as far as the need for education, this product isn't 
keeping up with standards and we need to look at how to change it, some 
folks might come forward and say, ``See these old machines here. We 
need to put more bells and whistles on to make them look nicer. We 
don't need to change the structure or how it works, it just needs to be 
run better and we need more people running it.'' That is what their 
answer is.
  Some of us are saying, as well, that maybe we should try other 
machines or look to change this machine so it doesn't function a little 
differently than it has done in the past. We want to put some money in 
to do that. This board of directors is saying, ``Oh, no, no. Leave this 
system just the way it is. Clean it up a little bit, put a few more 
operators on the machine, and put the money over here where we have the 
good product. Don't fix the old product.''
  I don't think that makes sense to most Americans. It certainly does 
not make sense to me. So what we are trying to do here in a very modest 
way is to say the future of education is going to be just like the 
future in everything we do, as we become more and more decentralized as 
an economy and as a

[[Page S3331]]

country, with people demanding and expecting more choices and more 
freedom and needing it to be flexible enough to deal with the changing 
economy and the changing world. Instead of setting up institutions and 
structures that may or may not--in most cases, they will not--meet the 
changing needs of our economy and our educational needs, to invest that 
money into the flexible family, if you will, into the family that in my 
community in Penn Hills, PA, maybe have very different needs as to what 
their child needs to be educated for, given the capability of the 
child, given what the economy is in the area, given what skills are 
necessary in the region, whatever it is, than someone in Birmingham, 
AL, who may have a very different set of skills needed, a very 
different community, very different needs, but allow that family to 
make that decision, give them the resources if they want to send the 
child to the public school and use that money to buy some software, or 
to buy a computer, or to buy other kinds of teaching aids, or to buy 
tutorial services, whatever it is, give them the flexibility to meet 
the needs of their child instead of putting more bricks in a school.

  It is just common sense. It makes sense. It is so obvious on its face 
that, if we are going to do anything to allow the family and the 
individual student to have the flexibility to deal with this changing 
environment in education and our economy, it is the only direction we 
can take rather than put money into the old machine to just make it 
look nice and put more operators pulling the gadgets. I mean, it is 
just inconceivable that anybody thinks that is the answer to this 
dynamic educational marketplace that we have. We have a great 
opportunity here to show that we get it--that we in our hallowed Halls 
can walk outside and go into a community school to see what makes the 
difference in education is not nice buildings or small classrooms. 
Those are nice things. But it is committed families, committed 
teachers, and it is community involvement--someone going to a school 
where they can take part of something that is good for them, they can 
contribute to their well-being. That can only be done through families 
and giving them the resources to maximize their own children's future.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________