Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3333-S3353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 2017

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate now turns to the amendment No. 2017
offered by the Senator from Ohio. Under the previous agreement, there
will be 2 minutes of debate equally divided followed by a vote on that
amendment.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I think this Nation of ours came to be what
it is, more than anything else, for one reason, and that is public
education in this country was not what it had been in Europe. It had
not been just for the kids from the castle. It had not been just for
the rich kids or the wealthy young people. It had not been just for
those who were politically well connected, who knew somebody.
In this country, education came to be for every single person, and
that grew as a national interest. It was implemented then for the K-12,
as we know it now, through the States and localities and communities
across this country. They formed local school boards, and we have
school districts. Now every single State has a requirement for public
education.
We did not preclude other people who had parochial school ideas for
their children, or whether they wanted to send their kids to boys
schools or girls schools or a special interest of some kind, from
forming those schools and from sending their children to those schools.
But we looked at the public responsibility as being to the public
schools that gave a good education to every single young person in this
country.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to lend my strong support
to the efforts of my colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn. Our colleague
from Georgia has introduced a bill which he claims will improve savings
for education. Unfortunately, the evidence from economists seems to
disagree with him. The average American family would save only $37
under Senator Coverdell's approach.
The reason for this is simple to understand. In order to experience
real economic benefit from a tax free savings plan, the principle and
interest must stay untouched for significant periods of time in order
to have a chance to grow. With H.R. 2646, parents would be allowed to
deposit up to $2,000 into an educational IRA, which is a significant
increase over the $500 they are currently allowed to contribute.
However, Senator Coverdell would also allow these families to withdraw
funds from the education accounts for the annual costs of elementary
and secondary education. So in essence, you would have families
depositing $2,000 into an educational savings account, accruing some
limited tax savings, and withdrawing it the next year.
Under this scenario, there are no long terms savings, no accumulated
interest and none of the real benefits that we are attempting to create
with these educational IRAs. That is why I am so pleased with the
approach taken by my friend, John Glenn. Through Senate Amendment 2017,
families would be able to contribute more to their tax free savings
accounts, however, it would be reserved for higher education expenses.
By increasing the contribution limit to $2,000, Americans can all reap
the benefit of increased savings for education. They will see their
principle grow with compound interest and Congress will preserve the
true intention of this newly created IRA.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this table be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

SAVINGS GROWTH THROUGH COMPOUND INTEREST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than--
------------------------------------------------
$10 per
Year $10 per week at $40 per week at $40 per
week at 12% 6% yield week at
6% yield yield 12% yield
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 530 560 2,120 2,240
2......................................................... 1,091 1,187 4,367 4,748
3......................................................... 1,687 1,889 6,749 7,558
4......................................................... 2,318 2,676 9,274 10,705
5......................................................... 2,987 3,557 11,950 14,230
6......................................................... 3,696 4,544 14,787 18,178
7......................................................... 4,448 5,649 17,794 22,599
8......................................................... 5,245 6,887 20,982 27,551
9......................................................... 6,090 8,274 24,361 33,097
10......................................................... 6,895 9,827 27,943 39,309
11......................................................... 7,934 11,566 31,739 46,266
12......................................................... 8,941 13,514 35,764 54,058
13......................................................... 10,007 15,696 40,030 62,785
14......................................................... 11,137 18,139 44,551 72,559
15......................................................... 12,336 20,876 49,345 83,506
16......................................................... 13,606 23,941 54,425 95,767
17......................................................... 14,952 27,374 59,811 109,499
------------------------------------------------
$8,500......................................................... $14,952 $27,374 $34,000/$59,811 $109,499
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Ohio is
recognized for an additional minute.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what my amendment would do is say we could
keep the $2,000 that is in the bill now, but we would move that just to
be used for post-12th grade education. In other words, we move from
$500 up to $2,000, but we say it cannot be used for private schools,
for private school vouchers, and so on.
I think when we start down this track, we start toward the ruination
or start opening the door, a toe in the door, for a ruination of our
public school system. I want the finest public school system we can
have. Voting a voucher system or taking public money off to support
private schools is not the way to go about it. I urge support for my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?

[[Page S3334]]

Mr. GRAMM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. How much time do we have on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes are equally divided under the
previous agreement.
Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes that the time for those who
would speak in opposition to the amendment is currently running with 35
seconds remaining.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, our leader on this issue, Senator
Coverdell, is at a press conference out on the steps. We have no
further requests to have speakers on our side. If the distinguished
senior Senator from Ohio is through with his portion of the debate, I
would be happy, on behalf of Senator Coverdell, to move to table the
pending amendment.
Mr. GLENN. Fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment No. 2017. 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 New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
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--38

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

NOT VOTING--2

Bennett
Moynihan

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2017) was agreed
to.

Amendment No. 2288

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 2288,
as amended, offered by Senators Mack and D'Amato.
Under a previous order, there will be two minutes equally divided for
debate followed by the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next
votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
If neither side yields time, the time will be charged equally to both
sides.
Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, our amendment provides incentives for
teacher testing and merit pay.
We see that competition in the 21st century will be based on
knowledge, and that if our children and our grandchildren are going to
be able to compete in this next century, they must have an education
second to none.
Quality teachers produce quality students. We believe this amendment
will increase the number of quality teachers in the school system
today.
With that, I yield to my colleague for his comments.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me simply say that the objective of
these reforms is to put our children first, to promote excellence in
education, to reward the truly outstanding teachers who create magic in
the classroom, give them merit pay, and see to it that we have a level
of competence in terms of teaching what our children require.
Mr. President, let me say that we do not mandate that States and
local districts come into this with the funds that will be provided for
merit pay and teacher testing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no time is yielded in
opposition to the amendment, the time will run.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be
yielded and that we proceed to the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question occurs on amendment No. 2288, the Mack-D'Amato
amendment, as amended.
The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Florida. On this question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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 New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 35, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

YEAS--63

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
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--35

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bryan
Bumpers
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Bennett
Moynihan

The amendment (No. 2288), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator will withhold.
The Senate will please come to order.
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Amendment No. 2291

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment offered by the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.

[[Page S3335]]

The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, under the rules, we have
a brief time for explanation of the amendment and in opposition. Two
minutes.
Are those who favor the amendment going to speak? Because I would
like to speak briefly in opposition.
Mr. COVERDELL. The protocol has been, those opposing the amendment
have taken the first 2 minutes, proponents for the amendment the last 2
minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is rather unusual. I will be glad to follow.
Usually those who propose it make the case for it; those opposed to it
speak in opposition. So I will reserve the time and wait until those
who favor the issue speak in favor of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Who yields time?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds to explain the
amendment, and then if the Senator would like to take his time, and
then I will reserve the last 30 seconds for Senator Collins to close.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms of North
Carolina be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment offers the opportunity,
the option to local school districts and parents to choose single-sex
classrooms or schools if there are comparable opportunities for both
sexes. ``Comparable'' is the word used by the Department of Education
and the Supreme Court in the VMI case to determine if there is equal
protection under the law.
I hope we will allow all of the parents of our country to have this
as an option. We have to break out of the box in public education to
give options to our parents for what is best for their child.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the purpose of the amendment of the
Senator from Texas is to permit separate classrooms for different
genders, you can already do that. We already have it. So there is no
purpose in this. If the purpose is to set up schools which are separate
and allegedly providing, as the amendment says, ``comparable,'' all you
have to do is look at the court opinions and what ``comparable'' means,
and it fails to meet the constitutional standard in terms of real
equality.
We don't have to learn in this country again that, when you have
either minorities in separate facilities or women in separate
facilities, it is second-level education or treatment. We can debate
that at another time. That is the history. If you just want to have
separate classrooms, you can already have them, and it is
constitutional.
There is a much more sinister and real issue of constitutionality
that is raised by this. We virtually had no hearings. If you don't want
to undermine the whole movement of trying to get equal treatment for
women in the classrooms and education, vote in opposition to the
amendment of the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment offered by the
Senator from Texas. There is a wonderful example of what she is talking
about in Presque Isle, ME. There is an all-girl's math class. They
produce wonderful results. I have been in that classroom, and the
learning there is absolutely terrific. But they had to go through all
sorts of regulatory hoops in order to be able to do that. They would
not have to under the amendment of the Senator from Texas. I am pleased
to join her in support of it. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 15 seconds left. I ask that the
Senator from Illinois be permitted 15 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much. I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts. I will be brief. As both a minority --the only minority
Member of this Chamber--and a woman, I fit both bills. Quite frankly,
we have been down the road of separate but equal and unequal in this
country. Unless it is equal, it winds up being unequal. The
discrimination that is possible by this legislation for girls is too
frightening to support it. I rise, therefore, in opposition. I ask
there be hearings on this matter so that we can visit with the parents
and see what direction they would like to take. Thank you.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 seconds to
ask the Senator a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is there anything sinister about your amendment?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am so pleased to have the question asked because,
of course, this is to allow local school districts to have the option.
We are not forcing this on anyone. But where an individual child can
best perform in a single-sex classroom, why not let them try it? Are we
not going to open our minds and be creative with our public education
system? If it is good enough for private education, it should be good
enough for public education, and everyone should have the opportunity
to do the best in the circumstances that fit them best. I thank the
Senator for the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2291. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 29, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

YEAS--69

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

NAYS--29

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bumpers
Cleland
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Sarbanes
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Bennett
Moynihan

The amendment (No. 2291) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, shortly I will offer an amendment
on behalf of myself and 18 others to submit a plan to help rebuild and
modernize our schools for the 21st century. The amendment creates a
simple and effective partnership between the Federal Government, State
and local governments, and the private sector to provide the financial
backing communities need to upgrade and modernize our schools.
This legislation will help modernize classrooms so that no child
misses out on the information age. It will also help ease
overcrowding--again, so that no child is subjected to what Jonathan
Kozol in his landmark book called ``Savage Inequalities'' that are
created by school environments that are unsuitable for learning. It
will help local governments patch the roofs, fix broken plumbing, and
strengthen the facilities that provide the foundation for our
children's education.
Just last month the grades were posted on a set of international math
and

[[Page S3336]]

science tests. Though results of those tests were profoundly
disturbing--American students placed at or near the bottom of every one
of the math and science tests offered, below countries like Cyprus,
Norway, Iceland and Slovenia--these results should be a clarion call to
every policymaker at every level that we need to do more to support
public education in this country.
Our amendment does exactly that. It creates a new category of zero
interest bonds for States and school districts to issue to finance
capital improvements. States and school districts will be able to issue
some $21.8 billion worth of these bonds over the next 2 years.
Purchasers of the bonds would receive Federal income tax credits
instead of interest. By using this innovative mechanism, this plan cuts
the costs of major school repair and construction by at least a third,
and in many cases by up to 50 percent. Over a 5-year period of time,
this plan will cost the Federal Government only $3.3 billion. We pay
for the amendment with several tax proposals from the President's
budget, several of which have already been approved by the Finance
Committee. So this bill is paid for, it is in the President's budget,
and it will allow the leveraging of substantial amounts of money to
help rebuild our crumbling schools.
The interesting thing about it, even at $21.8 billion, this amendment
only scratches the surface. According to the U.S. General Accounting
Office, it will cost $112 billion just to bring the schools in this
country up to good overall condition. That is just the basics, just
bringing them up to code. That does not equip them with computers and
fancy cosmetics but just to address the toll of deferred maintenance.
The GAO found that crumbling schools are to be found in every corner of
America. According to the General Accounting Office, 38 percent of
schools in urban areas are in the worst condition, 30 percent of rural
schools are in the worst condition, and 29 percent of suburban schools
are in the worst condition. So it is about a third, a third, a third.
This is not just an inner-city phenomenon. Crumbling schools can be
found in every kind of community in every part of our country.
In my home State of Illinois, school construction and modernization
needs top $13 billion. Many of our school districts have a difficult
time even buying textbooks and pencils, let alone financing major
capital improvements.
I will share some pictures. I think everybody who is listening to
this debate has probably seen some crumbling schools, but for those who
have not been in a local school recently, I show a picture of a hallway
in a school in my city. Nobody is proud to show pictures like this, but
this is just reality. As you can see, it looks like they have a new
fire alarm, but given the hallway, the infrastructure, they need a new
wall. They probably should replace the whole building, but the point is
the deferred maintenance is clearly evident.
Here is another picture showing the same school. We see the peeling
paint and the water damage. Here is the floor and the wall. It looks
like someone tried to cover up parts of the hallway, but the efforts
were obviously not good enough.
Our children should not have to learn in these kinds of conditions.
This is a picture of a school in a suburb of Chicago. Again, this is a
suburban school. These are the kinds of classes kids are required to
learn in during these times. A couple of weeks ago, President Clinton
came to Chicago and toured the Rachel Carson Elementary School. That
school has two buildings, an old one and a brand new one. In the old
building, classrooms are unusable because of many years of water
damage, and the windows have turned opaque. In the new building,
students can learn in modern and bright facilities. According to the
students and teachers, the new facility affords a much greater
opportunity to learn. And the teachers were so pleased because it
afforded them an opportunity to teach, again, without regard to the
threat of falling plaster.
Mr. President, our amendment will allow for school districts to build
and modernize more than 5,000 new schools across the country. It will
also give communities the power to relieve overcrowding. We have the
largest number of children in our schools in the history of our
country.
According to the Department of Education, enrollment will continue to
grow over the next 10 years. Just to maintain current class sizes, we
will need to build 6,000 new schools over the next 10 years. Now,
again, the problem of overcrowding, in addition to the problem of
deferred maintenance and neglect, is a serious one. I have visited
schools in my home State of Illinois where study halls are held in
hallways because there is no other classroom space. I have seen
stairway landings converted into computer labs, and cardboard
partitions used to turn one classroom into two. There was one school
where the lunch room had been converted into two classrooms so that the
students would have to eat in the gymnasium instead of having gym class
where they have ``adaptive physical education,'' where they stand next
to their desks because the gymnasium is now a lunch room. I was tickled
to listen to the young people talk about this problem and this issue.
One young man talked about a phenomenon called ``hall rage.'' He said,
``it happens when you are in the halls trying to get to class and it is
so crowded that you can't go anywhere.'' They are experiencing violence
in the hallways because of overcrowding.
These conditions directly affect the ability of children to learn
and, again, the research has backed up the intuition, what people know
intuitively, which is that we cannot expect our children to learn
tomorrow's skills in buildings that are crumbling down around them.
The problem is so widespread and pervasive, and I submit to anyone
listening that this really is a direct and foreseeable result of our
archaic school funding system. The current system of school funding was
established over a century ago when the Nation's wealth was measured in
terms of landholdings. Wealth is no longer accumulated just in land,
and the funding mechanism of relying primarily on the local property
tax is no longer appropriate, nor is it adequate. The current school
finance budget works against most American children and mitigates most
families' best efforts to improve local schools.
Again, according to the General Accounting Office, in another study
they did, poor and middle-class school districts really make the
greatest tax effort, but the system works against them. In some 35
States, poor and middle-class districts have higher tax rates than the
wealthiest districts, but they raise less revenue because there is, of
course, less property wealth to tax. In 11 States, this unfair system
has led the State courts to rule that their State school finance
systems are unconstitutional. In nearly every case, States complied by
raising property taxes or sales taxes to finance school improvement. By
the way, litigation is pending in 16 other States. The odds are that
many of those lawsuits will in fact result in higher local property
taxes.

Mr. President, our amendment can break this cycle of crumbling
schools and higher local taxes. Our amendment breaks the mold of school
financing and creates a new partnership for the 21st century where the
Federal Government, by giving tax benefits for investment, allows
States and local governments to leverage $22 billion worth of
investment in school infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to take a
close look at the needs of the schools in their States and decide what
they stand for--higher property taxes and crumbling schools, or lower
property taxes and a new partnership to improve our schools for the
21st century. Our students should learn about gravity in a science lab,
not from falling ceiling tiles. Our schools should be wired for
computers, not just metal detectors. Our classrooms should be
comfortable, not just crowded like rush hour commuter trains.
I believe that the American public understands this issue. According
to a bipartisan poll released earlier this year, 76 percent of
registered voters would support a $30 billion, 10-year Federal
commitment to rebuilding and modernizing our schools.
I want to submit for the Record a letter from the President of the
United States, which is on every Member's desk, I believe, in support
of this amendment, the last lines of which say:

[[Page S3337]]

Our children deserve schools they can be proud of. I urge
you to help our schools provide a learning environment that
will prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow by
supporting the Moseley-Braun amendment, and opposing the
expanded Education IRA's.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

The White House,

Washington, April 20, 1998.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: As you consider H.R. 2646 this week, you
will have the opportunity to vote for the first time on a
version of my proposal to help build and modernize more than
5,000 schools across America. I am writing to ask for your
support in this important effort and for your opposition to
the expanded Education IRAs in the bill.
Never before have the education infrastructure needs of the
Nation been so great. In order to accommodate record
enrollments, move to smaller class sizes, repair aging
buildings, take advantage of new technologies, and better
educate children with disabilities, States and localities are
faced with unprecedented construction and renovation needs.
The Federal Government helps build roads, bridges, and other
infrastructure projects, but none of that will matter much if
we let the education infrastructure come crumbling down on
our children. We must be part of the solution.
I understand that Senator Moseley-Braun will offer an
amendment that would replace the IRA provisions with a
proposal to allow communities to issue nearly $22 billion in
bonds for modernizing public schools. Because bond purchasers
would receive interest payments through a Federal tax credit,
communities' costs would be reduced by one-third or more. A
vote for this amendment is a vote for safer, state-of-the-art
schools that will open doors to the future for our children.
The IRA provisions, which provide tax benefits for
elementary and secondary education expenses, are both bad
education policy and bad tax policy. Instead of targeting
limited Federal resources to build stronger public schools,
this proposal would divert needed resources from public
schools. In addition, the expanded IRAs provide little
financial assistance to average families, disproportionately
benefiting the highest-income taxpayers. For these reasons,
and because of other potential amendments that may be
adopted, I would veto this bill.
Our children deserve schools they can be proud of. I urge
you to help our schools provide a learning environment that
will prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow by
supporting the Moseley-Braun amendment, and opposing the
expanded Education IRAs.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would not be here as a Member of
the U.S. Senate if it were not for a system of quality public education
when I came through the system. It breaks my heart that we have failed
to maintain that level of quality public education across this country
for every child that wants to access it.
It seems to me that as we go into the next century, it is the
responsibility of our generation to give every child the opportunity to
learn and to give every child at least the basic tools with which that
individual would not only be able to provide for themselves, but really
provide for our country's well-being. As we go into the next century,
there is no question that in this international global competition, in
this information age and age of technology, unless we educate every
child and give every child the ability to access a quality education,
to go as far as their talents will allow them, we will be undermining
our Nation's ability to maintain its standard as a leader in this world
economy. How and whether or not we train our work force may well come
down to something as simple as providing an environment that is
suitable for learning.
Our kids cannot learn if they are put in environments that are not
suitable for learning, in which they cannot access the new technology.
I submit to my colleagues that this is a very, very serious matter. I
find it interesting that even the columnists and the cartoonists have
drawn cartoons about this. But this is certainly no laughing matter. If
anything, this issue goes to the heart of our generation's commitment
to provide the next generation of Americans with at least as much as we
inherited from the last generation. We inherited from them a school
system that was quality, that was adequate, in which people like me
could get an education and ascend to the U.S. Senate. I am afraid that
unless we tackle this problem and create a partnership to help
modernize the schools, we will fail the next generation of Americans. I
therefore call upon my colleagues to put partisanship aside and support
this amendment.
I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, just an administrative technicality.
Under the unanimous consent agreement, we agreed that the amendment to
be offered by the Senator from Illinois would have an hour equally
divided. We have endeavored to accommodate the Senator from Illinois. I
don't believe the amendment is technically prepared, but I assume that
the Senator from Illinois agrees that the time we are spending now
would operate under the 1 hour equally divided time.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Absolutely. I thank the Senator from Georgia. He
is exactly right. It was my assumption that in light of the fact that
there was a technical glitch in the amendment as prepared, the time
used at this point would come off of that.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from Illinois. I commend her for her incisive
amendment, which will aid the children of America and the parents of
America. I appreciate very much her effort today.
Does the Senator from Delaware wish to say something? I will be happy
to yield temporarily.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I believe that, in the normal order of
things, as the manager of the bill, I would be next to address the
amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois had control and
yielded to the Senator from Rhode Island, which was her right to do.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me continue by again commending the
Senator from Illinois. It goes right to the heart of what we do
materially to aid the States and localities in the United States in
providing for excellent public education and excellent education
overall.
The statistics that we have seen about crumbling schools in the
United States is staggering. Just recently, the American Society of
Civil Engineers concluded that our schools are in the worst condition
of any of America's infrastructure. We know that because we go back to
our States and to our communities every weekend and we see these
buildings.
Just yesterday I was in the Providence Street Elementary School in
West Warwick, RI. The reason I went there is because this is an
excellent elementary school, one of two elementary schools in Rhode
Island accredited by the New England Association of Schools and
Colleges. I was talking to the principal and his staff. They do
wonderful things. I asked them: What is the biggest problem in this
school? They said, without hesitation, the facilities. The main
building of the Providence Street School was built in 1914 onto a
wooden structure. But in 1969 the school department acquired a
parochial school across the street. The classes are operating in both
of these schools. Schoolchildren--first graders, second graders, third
graders, and fourth graders--have to cross a busy thoroughfare each and
every day to change classes. There is no room in the old building, the
1914 building, to accommodate the new technology. The heating system
does not work. Yet, this is a wonderful school.
That is just an example of one school in my State. I could go on and
on and on. In Woonsocket, the Harris School was built in 1876, the year
that George Custer met his fate at Little Bighorn. It is still
operating. The Thompson Middle School in Newport, RI, part of it was
built in 1898.
These schools need help. These communities need help. This is not
just about improving the academic quality, which I think it could do
dramatically; it is also assisting taxpayers. More and more of our
constituents are coming up to us and telling us they cannot afford to
support increased property taxes

[[Page S3338]]

that support schools in their communities.
If we want to do anything constructive, pragmatic, and useful to help
not only the schools of America but the taxpayers of all the towns and
cities of America, then we will support this legislation because it
will directly assist them in their efforts. The proposal that Senator
Moseley-Braun has submitted is an ingenious way to use Federal
resources to promote public education at the local level.
Once again, we require the initiative of the locality. They will have
to decide what schools will be fixed up. They will have to go to their
communities and ask for bond authority to do it. But we would by paying
the interest to allow these communities to get the resources to make
the investment to fix the schools, to provide the education which we
know is at the heart not only of the individual progress of the next
generation of Americans but the progress of our Nation, because without
good schools, without schools that are at least sanitary, that at least
have the ability to accept modern equipment, without this minimal level
of adequacy, we cannot expect children to learn to be not only
productive members of our economy in the 21st century but to be
productive citizens of the 21st century. This is the way to proceed--
not by disseminating Federal resources in tax plans to aid private
schools but by allowing the local communities to use their initiative
to issue bonds with Federal help to fund, repair, and renovate schools.

This is what our constituents want. This is what we must do to
improve public education in this country.
I thank the Senator for her recommendation of this amendment. I urge
my colleagues to support it.
I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the distinguished
Senator from Illinois for two reasons. First, it is important to
understand that the amendment strikes section 101 of the Coverdell
bill. This section is the very heart of the legislation, for it is the
provision that provides the most widespread benefits for American
families. This section increases the maximum contribution to an
education IRA from $500 to $2,000. It permits the education IRA to be
used for elementary and secondary school expenses, and it permits the
education IRA to be used for public and private schools.
I have already spoken numerous times about the importance of making
these changes to the education IRA. In fact, the Senate has already
endorsed these changes as they were all included in the Senate version
of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provisions made sense at that
time, and they continue to make sense today. Our students and our
families need these resources and the benefits of an education IRA to
help them meet the cost and realize quality education. I hope my
colleagues continue to recognize just how important this tool can be
for the American people.
Mr. President, a second reason I oppose this amendment is that, in
effect, it would create a massive Federal mechanism whose stated
purpose is to spur the construction and rehabilitation of public
schools. It appears to be the same proposal contained in the
administration's fiscal year 1999 budget, and it would create a new
type of bond called a ``qualified school modernization bond.'' Unlike
regular tax-exempt bonds, like those already in the Coverdell bill
where holders receive tax-exempt interest payments, the holders of
these new ``qualified school modernization bonds'' would receive a
Federal tax credit in an amount to be set by the Treasury Department.
This amendment provides that a total of $19.4 billion worth of these
school modernization bonds could be issued around the country over the
next 2 years. It also increases the amount of qualified zone academy
bonds by $2.4 billion over 2 years.
Even more massive than the amount of bonds to be issued under the
proposal is the bureaucracy that would be created to administer this
program. The Treasury would need to establish a formula to allocate the
school modernization bonds. The amendment calls for half of the bonds
to go to the 100 largest school districts with the largest number of
low-income children. The other half of the bonds would go to the States
and Puerto Rico divided in proportion to their share of Federal
assistance. This would be according to the basic grant formula of the
Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965. Then all of this would be
readjusted for allocation to the 100 largest school districts.
This runs contrary to President Clinton's promise that the ``era of
big government is over.'' It runs contrary to our objective to
strengthen schools by empowering families and communities. It
consolidates ever-increasing power in the hands of a few Federal
bureaucrats while it robs our families and communities of local control
over their schools and precious financial resources.
Not only does the Moseley-Braun amendment create more bureaucracy in
the way that it requires the Federal Government to sift through the
criteria and bond allocation process, but it calls on the Federal
Government to oversee another massive program.
According to this amendment, a bond would only be deemed to be a
qualified school modernization bond if the Federal Department of
Education signs off on it. The Federal Department of Education would
have to approve the school construction plan of the States or eligible
school districts. By giving its OK, the Federal Department of Education
is supposed to consider whether--I am quoting from the administration's
description of its proposal:

The school construction plan must, one, demonstrate that a
comprehensive survey of a district's renovation and
construction needs has been completed; and, two, describes
how the jurisdiction will assure the bond proceeds are used
for the purposes of this proposal.

If we are to meet the education needs of our children and the
challenges of the future, we need less bureaucracy, not more. We need
greater involvement in oversight from our parents and communities, not
less. We need a Federal Government that supports the best and most
innovative programs and policies implemented by our States and local
school boards, not one that takes them over.
The bond proposals in this amendment are modeled after a much more
limited measure that was included in the 1997 tax bill at the request
of Congressman Rangel and the administration. The 1997 bill created
``qualified zone academy bonds.'' The purpose of these bonds was to
provide additional incentives for private entities to get involved in
school construction.
Holders of the qualified zone academy bonds, all of whom have to be
in the business of lending money, are to receive a tax credit instead
of an interest payment, and the amount of qualified zone academy bonds
for 1998 and 1999 was capped at $400 million per year.
The qualified zone academy bond program was deliberately kept small
for several reasons. First, there was a fundamental concern about the
Federal Government taking on the traditional State and local
responsibility for school construction. Second, it was unclear whether
the academy bond program would place funds where they need to be, in
the hands of local schools.
Nevertheless, here we are, less than 1 year later and the push is on
for a massive expansion of what is nothing more than an untested
proposal.
The attempt with this amendment is to authorize almost $22 billion in
all-school bonds, and this attempt is being made without any data that
the bond mechanism in the amendment is the most efficient or beneficial
way to help States and localities deal with school modernization. It is
simply unclear whether issuing a new type of bond, no matter how catchy
its name, will ultimately result in schools being modernized. What is
clear is that it once again falls back on the failed notion that
Washington knows best. It assumes that creating layer upon layer of
unneeded bureaucracy within the Department of Education is a far
greater solution than giving parents and local communities greater
control over the education of their children.
Under the proposal, the Department of Education would be required to
approve the school construction plan of a

[[Page S3339]]

State or eligible school district. This means that the bureaucrats from
Washington would be micromanaging a local school district's renovation
plans--in effect, second-guessing and even directing the decisions of
State and local officials. It also means that parents, local leaders,
and school districts would have to watch as their vital financial
resources are commandeered by Washington, DC, and sent out to build and
renovate schools elsewhere despite the fact that they themselves might
desperately need improvements in their own community schools.
This amendment strikes right at the heart of local control. It gives
the Department of Education the final say about how a school district
should address its construction and renovation needs. It allows the
Department of Education in Washington to tell local officials that they
have misjudged the needs of their district. This is wrong. Local
officials are the people who are on the front lines every day. They
know the needs of their students. They are directly accountable to
parents. It seems only a matter of common sense that they are the ones
who best understand the need of their district and the best ways to fix
any problems.

Yet this amendment would set up a structure whereby the availability
of this Federal tax benefit is controlled by Washington and not by the
localities. As the Department of Education would be required to monitor
whether the bond proceeds were being used for the stated, appropriate
renovation plan, Washington bureaucrats would have an ongoing
supervisory role.
It just does not make sense for the Department of Education to get
involved at this level. President Clinton himself stated in 1994 that
``the construction and renovation of school facilities has
traditionally been the responsibility of State and local governments,
financed primarily by local taxpayers.'' And in that respect I agree
with the President.
I remind my colleagues that the approach in the Moseley-Braun
amendment is not risk free. The costs are substantial. The Joint Tax
Committee estimates that the revenue loss to the Federal Government for
a program like this would be about $3.26 billion over 5 years and $9
billion over 10 years.
The Coverdell bill offers better government. I oppose the Moseley-
Braun amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me.
I yield back the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Who yields time?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair.
I say to my chairman, Senator Roth, that in the first instance the
Senator misread the bill. This plan provides for minimal administrative
requirements on the State and local authorities charged with school
repair and construction. The State and local school districts need meet
only two main requirements for issuing these new school bonds. First,
they have to document their school facility need. Second, they have to
describe how they intend to allocate the bonding authority to assure
that the schools get the benefit of it.
End of story. There is no reapplying for money. There is no
continuous oversight. There is no getting individual projects approved
by the Federal agency. There is nothing about having to deal with big
Government at all in this legislation.
I would add also that no school district, no State is required to
take this. This is for those school districts that want to issue these
bonds. It is a matter of engaging the private sector, engaging
communities, engaging local governments in helping to rebuild their
schools.
I yield 5 minutes--he wants 7.
Mr. ROTH. Will the distinguished Senator from Illinois yield on my
time for 60 seconds?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes, of course.
Mr. ROTH. First of all, I think it is important to point out that we
have not been graced with a copy of the amendment so that we are not in
a position to state specifically what it says. But my comments are
based on the administration's proposal, which specifically spells out
these requirements and would result in a major buildup of a Federal
bureaucracy. I would just like to point out that this local approach
is, indeed, contrary to what the President himself said in 1996. I
point to this chart here which says:

The construction and renovation of school facilities has
traditionally been the responsibility of State and
local governments, financed primarily by local taxpayers.
It goes on to say:

We are opposed to the creation of a new Federal grant
program for school construction.

With that I 100 percent agree, and it is because of that kind of
thinking I think it is important that this amendment be defeated.

Amendment No. 2292

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the
incentives for the construction and renovation of public schools, and
for other purposes)

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I say to my chairman, again, I apologize if he has
not had a copy of the amendment. It has just been cleaned up. We had a
technical modification, as you know.
I send this amendment to the desk so it is formally offered and ask
the clerk to dispense with the reading of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], for herself,
Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Robb, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Reid, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Harkin proposes an
amendment numbered 2292.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The amendment is as follows:
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, yesterday I attended the groundbreaking ceremony for a
new elementary school in Richmond, VA. It was an important occasion for
the city of Richmond because the last groundbreaking for a new public
school in the capital city of my State was 13 years ago, in 1985, the
last year I had the privilege of serving as Governor. Today, the
average age for all public schools in the Richmond system is 55 to 60
years, and two of them have portions of their facilities that date back
to 1888, 110 years.
Last month, Education Secretary Dick Reilly and I visited Chantilly
High School in Fairfax County. Even though Chantilly High is a new
school, its enrollment is already 20 percent over capacity. Classes are
being taught in 17 trailers that have no bathrooms, bad ventilation and
are not wired to the Internet. Some classes have student-teacher ratios
as high as 27 or 28 to 1.
I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of the school construction amendment
of the Senator from Illinois because this legislation gives important
Federal help to cities like Richmond and counties like Fairfax to help
build and renovate public schools. It not only addresses one of the
most pressing needs our schools face--the urgent need for school
construction money--it also represents an eminently appropriate and
constructive role for the Federal Government in education.
If we had unlimited resources, there is much more I would like to do
for education, and I support many of the provisions in the underlying
bill. But because Federal dollars are limited, we are forced to make
decisions on what is most important, on how best to spend the limited
Federal dollars we have.
To me, the provisions of the underlying bill simply do not meet this
test.
In truth, the simple question before us today is this: How can we
best invest $1.6 billion on education? Do we help States face their
urgent construction needs? Do we give States additional money to help
reduce class size? Do we help States incorporate technology into their
classrooms and curriculum? If we look into the language of the
underlying bill, the answer to every question is no.
But if we look at the language in the pending amendment and we ask
this

[[Page S3340]]

question--will we help States and localities build and renovate public
schools?--the answer is an emphatic yes.
Mr. President, there is no question the need is great. The Government
Accounting Office has estimated that our national school repair and
construction needs are $112 billion. Fourteen million children attend
public schools that are in need of major repair or complete
replacement. In addition, far too many young Americans attend woefully
overcrowded public schools. We need to help States repair and modernize
existing facilities.
In order to hire new teachers and reduce class size, we need
additional classrooms in which to place those teachers. In order to
increase student access to computers and technology, we need to help
some existing facilities undergo complete electrical upgrades to
support the use of that technology, and as we debate this bill, we
cannot be confused about what this bill is and is not.
Just because the word ``education'' is in the name, that does not
mean that the bill gives money to schools. In truth, this legislation
will not build a single school or hire a single teacher or help
incorporate technology into a single classroom.

Despite all the rhetoric, this bill is really nothing more than a tax
cut for the few when what we so urgently need is a new roof for the
many. Encouraging individuals to save their own money is a noble
intention, but like every decision we face, we have to acknowledge that
there is a cost, and the real cost of the underlying bill lies in every
school we don't help build, every teacher we don't help hire, every
leaking roof we don't help fix and every classroom we don't help wire
for the Internet.
Again, we have two choices: We can invest $1.6 billion in support of
school construction with the pending amendment, or we can spend $1.6
billion on tax cuts, disguised as education money, with the underlying
bill. I hope the Senate will support school construction.
I thank the Chair and yield back any time to the sponsor of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both
sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes 34 seconds to the Senator from
Georgia; 5 minutes 23 seconds to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first, I have the utmost respect for my
good colleague from Virginia, but I do want to correct one statement
that he made. He said that the underlying bill provides no provisions
for school construction. That is not accurate. The underlying bill
embraces the provisions of the Senator from Florida on the other side
of the aisle that does have a significant expansion of funding for
schools at the local level and, without creating a new bureaucracy,
leaving all the decisions to be made at the local level rather than at
the Department of Education.
In the debate between the chairman and the Senator from Illinois, it
is suggested that this does not carry that traditional, onerous Federal
intervention with prevention. But I would just like to share with you
that under this legislation, the Federal Government is required to
establish a formula to allocate the school modernization bonds.
The Federal Government would need to ensure that half the bonds go to
the 100 largest school districts with the largest number of low-income
children, and the other half of the bonds would go to the States and
Puerto Rico divided in proportion of shares of Federal assistance
according to the basic grant formula for the Elementary and Secondary
School Act of 1965.
The Federal Government would not only scrutinize the criteria and
figure out who gets what, it would be required to do more.
Under these provisions, a bond would only be deemed to be a qualified
school modernization bond if the Department of Education signs off on
it.
The Department of Education would also have to approve the school
construction plan of the State--that is a key one--or eligible school
district.
In approving the construction plan, the Department of Education is
supposed to consider whether a comprehensive survey of the district's
renovation and construction needs have been completed, et cetera;
expansion of the Federal oversight, the master principle envisioned
over local control.
The chairman of the board of education in my State accepts the
President's admonition that construction of schools is a responsibility
of local government. There is already Federal relief in terms of
financing, but that leaves all the decisions at the local level, like
the President wanted to do in 1996.
My State is spending over nearly $5 billion in school construction;
$186 million last year for 57 brand new schools and for modifications
in 110 additional schools.
This proposal rewards failure, because it moves to where the job has
not been done. Those States and communities that have been doing what
the President appropriately said here, they do not meet the criteria
anymore because they have eliminated the criteria.
Mr. President, we have heard a lot during the course of this debate
about how a modest tax relief for 14 million families is inappropriate
tax policy. I reminded the other side that the definition of the tax
relief is identical to the IRA we passed last year and signed by the
President for college education, and all we have done is taken that
proposal and expanded it to $2,000 instead of $500 and have allowed it
to be used for grades kindergarten through high school.
This amendment eliminates that proposal and that modest tax relief,
which is about $500 million over 5 years and a little over $1 billion
over 10 years, and creates tax relief of $9 billion--for whom? Banks,
insurance companies and very, very successful people are going to be
the recipients of this $9 billion. So we just take these little folks
making $75,000 or less, $150,000 or less, mop that out--that's not good
policy--and create tax relief on these bonds that would go to banks and
insurance companies, and we all know who buys these kinds of bonds,
these tax-exempt bonds. Out goes the little guy, in comes the big guy.

Mr. President, school construction and quality of schools and the
facilities are important. For as long as we have known, that has been a
duty of the State and the local government. A lot of States and a lot
of local communities have fulfilled that requirement. They will be on
the short end of this proposal.
The underlying proposal for school construction expands financing for
schools, gives additional options, but it keeps the decision apparatus
at the local level. And it does not create another Federal outreach,
another Federal intervention, into the local process of school
construction.
I oppose the amendment on those grounds. But I am particularly
concerned that it eliminates the heart of the underlying proposal,
which is to create a modest--the families will not be taxed on an
interest buildup, such a modest proposal that creates such a big
response in America where 14 million families come forward and save $5
billion in the first 5 years, up to $10 billion over 10 years, and
there is not a single tax dollar involved. These are voluntary dollars,
an enormous infusion, frankly, larger than this proposal, behind the
student--not the building, but the student. Those billions of dollars
will buy computers and tutors and deal with special learning
disabilities and cost the Federal Government, in terms of taxes not
collected, a very modest amount.
But this will go to buildings, and this will cost the taxpayers $9
billion. Conversely, this little proposal, the education savings
account, creates $10 billion. There is no school board that has to
raise its property tax base. There is no State that has to raise its
income tax. There are no new taxes from the Federal Government. It is
people doing it on their own, simply because we have said, we will
allow you to keep your investment, your principal, and we will not tax
you on the interest if you use it to help your child in school wherever
they happen to be.

[[Page S3341]]

The other side has repeatedly said this is for private schools. And
7.5 percent of the underlying cost of the underlying bill could help
somebody who has a child in private schools; 90-plus percent goes to
children and helps people in the public school system. So it is just
incorrect--and the Senator from Illinois has not been part of that, but
all morning long I have heard this business that the underlying
proposal is for private schools. It is just not the case.
Seventy percent of the families who use these savings accounts have
children in public schools. Half the money that is generated--and it is
their money--would go to support children in public; half of it would
go to support children in private. Tax relief that would be associated
with private is about $200 million over 5 years, or about 7 percent of
the cost of this bill.
Mr. President, I yield back whatever is left of my 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator
from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, it is important to note
that under the Moseley-Braun amendment the provision dealing with the
construction, the Graham amendment, is not struck, it is preserved, as
well as the tuition assistance programs. What is struck is the
Coverdell proposal. And the Coverdell proposal, according to the Joint
Tax Committee, provides that the majority of its money is going to go
to private schools. Now that is a fact.

You have the choice of whether you want that or whether you want to
have a downpayment in our public schools to try to help ensure that we
are going to free our public schools from asbestos, from boilers
breaking down, and from leaky pipes.
Mr. President, I want to just mention a case here that is right on
point. And this is the Revere public schools. That is a blue-collar
area in Massachusetts. It has increased by 25 percent the enrollment
over the past 5 years in the elementary schools. Revere recently passed
a $2.2 million referendum to repair roofs in three schools and to
remove the asbestos panels and modernize the fire alarm system in the
high school. Since then, the high school roof has begun to leak,
threatening to ruin the new fire alarm system. The town estimates it
will cost $1 million to repair the roof. The mayor says: We would
repair the roof if we had the Carol Moseley-Braun amendment.
What I hear from the mayors all over Massachusetts, in the old towns
and communities, as well as in the rural areas, is that interest on
some of these bonds runs up to 40 percent of the burden and the debt,
in many instances, if they are not attended to in a prompt way.
This provides a helping hand to those needy communities. And it is an
essential part of the President's program. I commend the Senator from
Illinois for making this strong case and hope our colleagues will
support her.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to support two
construction initiatives to help our public schools reduce
overcrowding. The first is included in Senator Roth's substitute bill
that is before us and the second is an amendment by Senator Carol
Moseley-Braun.
The two proposals combined mean that California could issue tax
exempt bonds totaling $2.8 billion. They differ in their approach and
help two different types of districts. The Roth proposal will help
suburban high-growth areas. The Moseley-Braun proposal will target
disadvantaged, inner city districts, while also providing the state
with authority to address the needs of other districts.

the roth proposal

The school construction provisions of Senator Roth's education bill
provide $2.4 billion per year for new tax-exempt bonds and allocate
them according to a state's population, at $10 per person. It targets
funding at the school districts with a 20 percent enrollment growth
between 1990 and 1995. Under this proposal, California could issue tax-
exempt bonds totaling $322 million and as many as 77 high-growth school
districts in California could take advantage of these bonds. This means
that using these bonds, we could build 40 elementary schools, 8 middle
schools and 2 high schools in my state. We could build schools in high-
growth school districts like Clovis, Capistrano, Tustin, Elk Grove,
Modesto, Palo Alto, Lancaster, Culver City, and Fontana.
The Roth proposal creates a new category of tax exempt facility bonds
to encourage innovative public-private partnerships for school
construction, but the ownership of the school building would stay with
the public school district. This approach could brings some innovative
financing to school construction, in my view.
While in terms of California's enormous needs, the amount of bonding
authority in this proposal is modest, it does offer a new financing
tool for our schools.

the moseley-braun amendment

I also will vote for the school construction amendment to be offered
by Senator Moseley-Braun, which will provide $22.6 billion in authority
for state and local governments to issue bonds to construct and
rehabilitate schools. In addition, her amendment will make more
qualified zone academy bonds available by increasing the national bond
cap from $400 million to $1.4 billion and by allowing them to be used
for school construction. Bondholders would get federal tax credits in
lieu of interest.
Under this proposal, California could get $2.5 billion in bonds, the
most of any state. Thirty-five percent of these bonds would be used by
the 100 largest school districts based on their ESEA Title I funding,
which assists disadvantaged children. Sixty-five percent would be
distributed by states based on their own criteria. In addition, the
Secretary of Education could designate 25 additional districts based on
the state's share of ESEA Title I grants, excluding the 100 largest
districts.
Under this amendment, the following school districts could receive
the following allocations:

Bakersfield City Elementary, $19 million;
Compton Unified, $30 million;
Fresno Unified, $56 million;
Long Beach Unified, $48 million;
Los Angeles Unified, $481 million;
Montebello Unified, $22 million;
Oakland Unified, $35 million;
Pomona Unified, $18 million;
Sacramento City Unified, $31 million;
San Bernardino City Unified, $32 million;
San Diego City Unified, $68 million;
San Francisco Unified, $28 million;
Santa Ana Unified, $27 million; and
Stockton City Unified, $24 million.
In addition to these, the state would get $1.2 billion to allocate
among needy school districts.
In my state, these two proposals provide two approaches to address
the school construction needs in two different types of California
school districts. The Roth-Coverdell proposal helps districts with
enrollment growth exceeding 20% between 1990 and 1995, high-growth
districts. The Moseley-Braun proposal helps the large, urban, poor
districts, districts that also have pockets of escalating enrollments
and dilapidated and crowded buildings.

california's critical needs

My state faces severe challenges.

soaring enrollment growth

California's public school enrollment between 1997 and 2007 will grow
by 15.7 percent, triple the national rate of 4.1 percent. California's
schools will see the largest enrollment increase of all states during
the next ten years.
Each year between 160,000 and 190,000 new students enter California
classrooms.
California's high school enrollment is projected to increase by 35.3
percent by 2007. Approximately 920,000 students are expected to be
admitted to schools in the state during that period, boosting total
enrollment from 5.6 million to 6.8 million.
California needs to build 7 new classrooms a day at 25 students per
class between 1997 and 2001 just to keep up with the growth in student
population.

overcrowding

California needs to add about 327 schools over the next three years
just to keep pace with the projected growth. Yet these phenomenal
construction rates would only maintain current use and would not even
begin to relieve current overcrowding.
We have the largest class sizes in the nation. Students are crammed
into every available space and in temporary buildings. Los Angeles
Unified School

[[Page S3342]]

District, for example, has 560,000 seats for 681,000 students.
Here are a few other examples:
At Horace Mann Year-Round School in Oakland, increasing enrollment
and class size reductions require some teachers and students to pack up
and move to a new classroom every month.
At John Muir Elementary School in San Bruno, one class spent much of
the year on the stage of the school's multipurpose room as it waited
for portables to arrive.
Anaheim City School District has a 6 percent enrollment growth rate,
double the state average and recently approved the purchase of 10
portable buildings, at a cost of $235,000 to relieve overcrowding.
Los Angeles Unified School District has 195 schools on a
nontraditional, year-round schedule and is bussing 11,000 students away
from their neighborhoods because of overcrowding. Garfield High School
in East Los Angeles was built for 2,500 students but now has almost
5,000. Many classes have 40 or more students per teacher.
In order to build it's way out of overcrowding, Oceanside School
District in San Diego, would need to build four elementary schools, two
middle schools and a high school at an estimated cost of $110 to $140
million.

Old Schools

60 percent of our schools are over 30 years old.
Today's schools need a modern infrastructure, including updated
wiring for computers.
In California, 87 percent of the public schools need to upgrade and
repair buildings, according to the General Accounting Office,

High Costs

The California Department of Education estimates that the state needs
$22 billion during the next decade to modernize our public schools and
an additional $8 billion to meet enrollment growth.
Here's what it costs to build a school in California:
An elementary school (K-6), $5.2 million;
A middle school (7-8), $12.0 million; and
A high school (9-12), $27.0 million.
Our schools must be built to withstand earthquakes, floods, El Nino
and a myriad of other natural disasters. California's state earthquake
building standards add 3 to 4 percent to construction costs.
The cost of building a high school in California is almost twice the
national cost. The U.S. average is $15 million; in California, it is
$27 million.

Class Size Reduction

Our state, commendably, is reducing class sizes in grades K through 3
because smaller classes improve teaching and learning.
We have the largest pupil-teacher ratios in the country and
fortunately, we are beginning to reduce class sizes. Small classes
bring more individual attention to students, but smaller classes mean
more classrooms.
In short, California's needs are immense and states and local
communities need the federal partner.

Conclusion

These new bond programs will provide important assistance for school
districts across America. Some of the bonds can especially help small
and low-income area school districts, because low-income communities
with the highest school rehabilitation and construction needs may have
to pay the highest interest rates in order to issue the bonds, if they
can be issued at all.
These approaches are similar to the bill I introduced on March 12,
the Expand and Rebuild America's Schools Act, S. 1753. My bill would
provide a tax credit for bond holders of school construction bonds and
includes criteria to address high growth areas and older schools in
need of modernization.
School overcrowding places a heavy burden on teachers and students.
Studies show that the test scores of students in schools in poor
condition can fall as much as 11 percentage points behind scores of
students in good buildings. Other studies show improvements of up to 20
percent in test scores when students move to a new facility.
The point is that improving facilities improves teaching and
learning. School overcrowding undermines the health and morale of
students and teachers, disrupting education. Overcrowded schools
prevent both teachers and students from reaching their full potential.
Our nation's school districts face huge challenges as we move toward
the 21st century, with a record 52.2 million children this year and a
booming school population forecast well into the next century. The
legislation proposes modest, targeted federal support for school bonds
in growth areas, offering important assistance to school districts,
teachers, parents and students.
In the end, it is improved student achievement is what this is all
about and in the end, that is the goal of this Senator.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun. The Senator's
amendment would authorize over $22 billion in essential bonding
authority to the 50 States and territories to improve our Nation's
public school system.
The Moseley-Braun school construction amendment would provide direct
assistance to states to improve and construct school facilities for our
nation's children. The amendment before us will help thousands of
schools across the country modernize their facilities to meet
increasing technological demands. It will also provide assistance to
local school districts to build additional facilities for the growing
number of students.
Hawaii's schools, particularly our rural schools on the neighbor
islands, are in great need of improvement and modernization. The
inclusion of modern technology in our education curriculum requires
extensive renovations in older school buildings to ensure that all
children have equal access to today's technological advancements.
Hawaii's schools could receive an estimated $53 million for school
construction under this amendment. This would greatly assist my state
in meeting the increased educational demands of our children.
Mr. President, as a former teacher, I have taught in both the private
and public school systems, and I recognize the advantages and
disadvantages of both systems. However, I believe that the Federal
Government has a moral obligation to ensure that all our children are
provided a quality education, and diverting potential resources away
from our public schools is a disservice to the majority of American
children who attend public schools. The underlying proposal does not
focus on those who need the most help. The bill before us provides an
average tax break for families with public school children of only $7
over five years, while families with children in private schools would
receive a $37 benefit. This proposal provides a disproportionate share
of benefits to wealthier families who do not need the additional
Federal assistance.
I urge my colleagues to support the Moseley-Braun school construction
amendment and provide all our nation's children an equal opportunity to
learn in safe, clean, modern school facilities. Thank you, Mr.
President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I will close. How many minutes do I
have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 18 seconds.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I will close briefly by saying this: The choice,
unfortunately, here is between a new and complicated tax cut that is
disguised as education policy--and I say ``new and complicated;'' it is
all of $7 to a maximum of $37 a year tax cut that nobody really asked
for. It will not fix a single school. It will not deal with an existing
problem. It will not reduce a single dollar of property taxes.
I point out that the quote from the administration that was made in
1996 makes it very clear: Traditional responsibility, financed by local
taxpayers. We are trying to provide a partnership to break the cycle of
crumbling schools and high property taxes by providing a partnership
that allows us to fix crumbling schools, to fix up the schools, provide
an environment suitable for learning, and reduce the property tax
burden, and bring the Federal Government, in cooperation and
collaboration--not a lot of bureaucracy, but as a helping hand.
The Federal Government is not the problem here. It is not the
solution here. It can only help and assist local

[[Page S3343]]

efforts. That is all this amendment does. I urge my colleagues to
support the Moseley-Braun amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. President, the statement was made by the distinguished Senator
from Illinois that her legislation would not require the creation of
the type of bureaucracy of which I spoke in my opening remarks. I have
since then, for the first time, received a copy of the amendment. But I
have to say that exactly as I spelled out in my statement, this
legislation requires very detailed action on the part of the Department
of Education and the Treasury in allocating and granting the funds
provided for under this agreement.
Let me just give you one or two illustrations of what I speak. On
page 17, in paragraph 5, it says:

Approved state application.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the term ``approved State application'' means an application
which is approved by the Secretary of Education and which
includes--
(A) the result of a recent publicly-available survey
(undertaken by the State with the involvement of local
education officials, members of the public, and experts in
school construction and management) of such State's needs for
public school facilities, including descriptions of----

I will not read on. But I want to reemphasize that this legislation
is putting control of school construction in the hands of Washington,
of the Federal bureaucracy. And that is exactly contrary to what the
President himself said in the justification of an appropriations
estimate.
I think it is important too, because I agree with what he says here:

The construction and renovation of school facilities has
traditionally been the responsibility of state and local
governments, financed primarily by local taxpayers; we are
opposed to the creation of a new federal grant program for
school construction.

That is exactly what I am saying today. We are opposed to the
creation of a new Federal program with a bureaucracy. We think the
control of our schools, including the construction of new facilities,
should be in the hands of the State and local government.

I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from
Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes and 14 seconds, and the Senator
from Illinois has 2 minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I reiterate in the underlying proposal
there is a concern about school construction. In that sense, there is a
sharing of concern with the Senator from Illinois. We have a different
view about how to come to it.
I believe, as I said, this proposal moves to failure. A State that
has met its responsibilities and kept schools up to the level they
should be doesn't meet the criteria in the amendment for the funding.
The second point, and probably for me the most significant, is that
this amendment obviates and destroys the education savings account that
we have been discussing now for almost 6 months. This education savings
account offers modest tax relief, which causes Americans to do very big
things. About $500 million-plus tax relief on the interest buildup in
the savings account will cause 14 million families, according to the
Joint Tax Committee, to open such an account and save, of their own
money, $5 billion in 5 years, over $10 billion in 10 years, all of
which comes to the direct support of a child's need--tutor, computer,
transportation, afterschool program, uniform; it goes on.
So with just a modest incentive offered from the Federal Government,
we cause Americans to step forward and give massive support to
education.
Now, that is taken out of the bill and exchanged for something that
takes $9 billion of Federal money, doesn't create a dime on the part of
these families, and this tax relief goes to the financiers. A certain
segment of it can only be managed by banks and insurance companies, and
the balance of it certainly will gravitate to the wealthiest of our
society.
So we kick out these average families--middle-income families. They
cannot open a savings account and save this modest tax on their
interest. That goes in the trash can. But the big dollars for big
investors comes forward. The net exchange is, the Federal Government
expends $9 billion instead of $1 billion and creates no investment
versus $10 billion in investment. That is not a very good exchange. The
little guy gets shortchanged. He or she cannot open a savings account,
but the big institutions have an incentive to come forward.
So I repeat, this proposal rewards failure, it creates a massive new
Federal reach, new Federal intervention into what even the President
says should be a local decision, and wipes out those 14 million savings
accounts.
I just say, one of the important features of that savings account
that I think never gets talked about is the fact that every time the
family opens it, from that point on, every month when they get the
statement--not with their billions, but with their hundreds of
dollars--every month they get it, they will be reminded of what that
child needs for the school they attend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the opponents has expired.
The Senator from Illinois has 2 minutes.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I fear somehow that in parts of this debate we are
talking at each other. That is unfortunate.
Everybody, of course, supports increased savings. That is not the
issue. The question is whether or not this is education policy and
whether or not we are responding to a very real need.
The relief provided in the Coverdell proposal, the $7 a year, is not
going to fix a single broken window or roof. It is not going to address
this issue of public schools at all. That is where this issue is
joined, unfortunately.
In closing, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a
list of the supporters of this proposal, along with a representative
sample of letters, including one from a teacher in downstate Illinois.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

List of Supporters

AFL-CIO. American Association of School Administrators.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
American Federation of Teachers. Children's Defense Fund.
Council of Chief State School Officers. Hispanic Education
Coalition. National Coalition for Public Education. National
Education Association. National School Boards Association.
National PTA. National Urban League. Rebuild America's
Schools. United Auto Workers. Union of Needletrades,
Industrial and Textile Employees.
____

letter from dorothy strickler

I am a teacher in a public high school in Illinois, as is
my husband. We are very concerned about the physical
condition of the schools in downstate Illinois, especially.
My husband's school is in rural Stark County. The building is
almost 80 years old. It is completely inaccessible to the
handicapped. His classroom has windows which will not stay
open and having an open window in a classroom with no air-
conditioning is important. In order to have fresh air in the
room he must climb on a chair and onto the window sill to
prop a stick in the window. This is just one example of the
poor conditions he must face every day when he goes to work.
As for my situation, the worst problem I face is the lack
of air-conditioning. My school is in Peoria County. Our
school year begins August 15 and at times the room in which I
teach has a temperature of 95+ degrees. We have state-of-the-
art computer technology, but no air-conditioning.
I hope the federal government can pass legislation to help
school districts in this country bring their buildings up to
livable standards. We have brand new jails going up all
around us, but our children and teachers in the schools are
trying to work in conditions no one in any other part of
society would tolerate.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Strickler.
____

National Education Association,

Washington DC, March 11, 1998.
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 2.3 million members of the
National Education Association (NEA), we reiterate our
opposition to the ``education IRAs'' for private schools in
S. 1133 and urge you to vote against passage of this bill or
any similar provision. No modification or additional
amendments to this provision, such as school construction,
would change our position. Positive ideas, such as
modernizing public school buildings, should not be tied to
tax schemes to benefit private and religious schools.
Instead of supporting S. 1133, NEA urges you to vote for a
substitute to provide tax credits to subsidize $22 billion of
school modernization bonds over 10 years. These bonds would
enable states and local public school districts, which serve
more than 90 percent of all students, to provide safe, modern

[[Page S3344]]

schools that are well-equipped to prepare students for jobs
of the future. School modernization bonds would target one-
half of the funds to schools with the greatest number of low-
income children and allow states to decide where to
distribute the remaining half. This would ensure that rural,
urban, and suburban schools all benefit from these bonds.
The provision in S. 1133 to create tax-free savings
accounts to pay for private and religious schools would do
nothing to improve teaching or learning in our public
schools. It would also disproportionately benefit wealthy
families who already send their children to private and
religious schools. The public and parents say they want
federal investments to improve teacher training, promote safe
schools, and establish programs to help all students reach
high standards. Tax shelters, as proposed by S. 1133, would
do nothing to help achieve these goals.
Further, this tax-free savings account does not guarantee
parents a choice of schools. Private school admissions
officers would decide which students to accept. An editorial
about S. 1133 in the September 11, 1997 issue of the
Christian Science Monitor stated: ``Sounds innocent enough.
But where does it lead? It's a small step toward positioning
government behind private--most often church-related--
elementary and secondary education.''
NEA urges you to vote for the public school modernization
bond substitute and against cloture and final passage of S.
1133 if it contains the private school tax scheme.
Sincerely,
Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
Director of Government Relations.
____

National PTA,

Office of Governmental Relations,

Washington, DC, April 20, 1998.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The 6.5 million-member National PTA opposes
H.R. 2646, expected to be taken up during the week of April
20th. There are two amendments the National PTA urges you to
support because they would eliminate the problem of funneling
public dollars into tax breaks for private and religious
school participation. One of the amendments will be offered
by Senator Moseley-Braun and would substitute Senator
Coverdell's tax package for a proposal to fund school
construction projects designed to modernize public schools.
The other amendment we urge you to support will be offered by
Senator Glenn. His proposal would strike the language that
allows for a tax subsidy for K-12 education, so that the tax
breaks would go toward higher education accounts only.
The substitute package authorizes a tax credit for
desperately needed construction and renovation. Instead of
investing taxpayers' money in savings accounts that would
primarily reward wealthy families, the substitute would
direct federal resources to build and modernize public
schools across the nation. By paying for the interest on
nearly $22 billion in state and local bonds, the substitute
will help ensure that children across the nation will be able
to learn in safe, modern, well-equipped schools and get
preparation they need to succeed in the 21st Century.
The amendment eliminating the K-12 language would still
allow parents to invest $2,000 in higher education savings
accounts, thus providing greater long-term financial benefits
to families. According to The Joint Committee on Taxation,
families who withdraw funds from the accounts to pay for
primary and secondary school education will only receive an
average tax benefit of $7 if their child goes to public
school and $37 if their children attend private schools.
If either the substitute or the amendment do not pass, we
urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 2646. Instead of using
investing taxpayers' money to help a few children, we implore
you to support investments in public schools that serve
approximately 90% of K-12 students.
Sincerely,
Shirley Igo,
Vice President for Legislation.
____

Rebuild America's Schools,

Washington, DC, April 20, 1998.
Re: Moseley-Braun School Modernization Amendment to H.R. 2646
(S. 1133)
Dear Senator: Rebuild America's Schools is a coalition of
school districts and national organizations organized to help
local communities in their efforts to modernize and build the
school facilities needed to prepare our nation's students for
the 21st century.
Rebuild America's Schools supports the Moseley-Braun,
Moynihan, Daschle, Kennedy, School Modernization substitute
amendment to H.R. 2646 (S. 1133). This amendment provides tax
incentives to assist local communities in offering school
construction bonds. The Qualified School Construction Bonds
will enable states and school districts to offer $9.7 billion
in school construction bonds in FY '99 and 2000. The
Qualified Zone Academy Bonds established in the 1977
Taxpayers Relief Act also are expanded.
The need to repair, modernize and build new schools to meet
rising enrollments is well documented in virtually every
community in the nation. The Government Accounting Office
report on the condition of America's schools established the
alarming fact that over $112 billion must be invested to
repair and modernize existing school facilities. State and
local communities are struggling to finance school
modernization programs. It cannot be done without federal
support. The students educated in the local public schools of
today will be tomorrow's political, economic and social
leaders.
Federal support through the tax incentive programs
presented in the Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Daschle and Kennedy
amendment will provide federal support in a magnitude which
will help local communities renovate and build the schools
they need. Decision making prerogatives and local
responsibility for management of school facilities will
remain at the local level. Proposals such as exempt facility
bonds or private activity bonds for public schools do not
provide enough resources to provide real assistance to the
broad range of rural, urban and growing school districts
straining to provide modern and safe school facilities for
their students.
The Moseley-Braun, Moynihan amendment can generate more
than $20 billion in school construction bonds. This will
reach every state at a cost to the federal government of $3.3
billion over five years, according to the Joint Committee on
Taxation.
The Moseley-Braun Substitute amendment to H.R. 2646 (S.
1133) commits significant federal incentives to help state
and local communities provide educational facilities to
enable students to thrive and prosper in the society and
economy of the 21st century.
We urge your support of the substitute amendment.
Sincerely,
Robert Canavan,
Chair.
____

American Association of

School Administrators,

Arlington, VA, April 16, 1998.
Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: The American Association of
School Administrators (AASA), representing more than 14,000
public school superintendents nationwide, urges you to oppose
the ``A+ Savings Accounts'' championed by Senators Coverdell
and Torricelli. If enacted into law, this cleverly packaged
voucher scheme would mark a landmark shift of the federal
role in elementary and secondary education. It represents the
first step in an effort to shift federal aid away from public
schools, where 90 percent of American children are educated,
and towards private and religious schools.
As you know, and as research and testing prove, most of the
challenges that public education currently faces are related
to poverty. AASA's members believe that, because of this, it
is illogical for Washington to create new education programs
that only wealthy taxpayers will be able to effectively
utilize. As you know, AASA has designed a bold reform plan
specifically aimed at impoverished local schools which
incorporates ideals championed by Republicans and Democrats.
AASA's members support strong, decisive, and innovative
action at the federal level to improve public education;
however, the Coverdell-Torricelli plan is none of these
things.
We understand that Senator Dodd will offer an amendment to
spend the money that would be spent on the Coverdell-
Torricelli plan on the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). As you know, the federal government has
never come close to meeting its fiscal responsibilities under
IDEA. Senate Republicans have stated, and included in their
budget resolution, their intent to fully fund IDEA before
embarking on new education spending. AASA strongly supports
fully funding IDEA, and AASA's members believe that the Dodd
amendment offers an excellent opportunity to move the federal
government towards meeting its commitment.
AASA also strongly supports Senator Moseley-Braun's
amendment to modernize American schools and Senator Glenn's
amendment to modify the Education Individual Retirement
Accounts. Considering the Joint Tax Committee's estimate of
the benefit to public school families from the Coverdell-
Torricelli plan, the contrast between the Moseley-Braun
school modernization initiative and this thinly disguised
voucher plan could not be more stark.
Thank you for considering our views. AASA stands ready to
assist you however we are able. Please do not hesitate to
call on us.
Sincerely,
Andrew Rotherham,
Legislative Specialist.
____

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, March 17, 1998.
Dear Senator: The AFL-CIO strongly urges you to oppose
motions to invoke cloture and final passage of S. 1133, the
Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act. The provisions
of this bill amount to nothing more than subsidized private
education for children of wealthy Americans paid for by the
tax dollars of the working public.
The simple truth is that the average working family will
never benefit from the IRA accounts created by S. 1133.
Ninety percent of American children grades K-12 attend public
schools and will never benefit from IRA accounts. Because S.
1133 can be used by wealthy taxpayers making up to $160,000,
70% of the benefits from the new IRA accounts will go to 20%
of the nation's wealthiest families. The average American
working family with children under the age of 18 cannot
accumulate the savings necessary to use the new IRA. The
Joint Committee on Taxation found that 60% of taxpayers would
not establish such an account.

[[Page S3345]]

S. 1133 does nothing to achieve educational goals that are
widely agreed upon. There is no funding to facilitate higher
academic standards, improved teacher training and safer
schools. Instead, the bill allows scarce federal funds to be
used for undefined ``tutors'' (including babysitters or
family members) and transportation, which according to the
Joint Committee on Taxation, could mean using the IRA to buy
a car for a student. Equality of educational opportunity
cannot be achieved by diverting funding from public schools
attended by many to private schools benefiting few.
S. 1133 amounts to little more than a voucher program to
defray private education costs for the children of a very
small number of wealthy Americans. The AFL-CIO urges you to
oppose motions to invoke cloture and final passage of S.
1133, and work with us to address the educational needs of
all our children.
Sincerely,
Peggy Taylor,
Director, Department of Legislation.
____

American Federation of Teachers,

Washington, DC, April 15, 1998.
Dear Senator: On April 20, 1998, the Senate will return to
H.R. 2646. On behalf of 950,000 members of the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT), I again urge you to vote
against H.R. 2646, The Parent and Student Savings Account
Plus Act, commonly called the Coverdell bill. H.R. 2646
provides a $2,000, IRA-like investment account, whose tax-
free proceeds can be used to pay for private K-12 educational
expenses. The American Federation of Teachers strongly
opposes this bill because it is an indirect form of
educational voucher that would undermine support of public
schools.
H.R. 2646 will not benefit working families because they do
not have the necessary discretionary income. It is an
expensive bill that would provide tax breaks primarily to the
wealthiest families. The Treasury Department estimated that
70 percent of the benefits will go to the wealthiest 20
percent of the nation's families, and as drafted, will
increase the administrative problems of the IRS. Further, the
Joint Tax Committee estimates the average benefit for public
school families would be only $7 by the year 2002, and $37
for private school families.
The bill ignores the fact that almost 90 percent of K-12
students go to tuition-free public schools. For this reason,
the Coverdell bill can be described as a ``voucher-like''
tax-free savings account that for the most part will benefit
wealthy families who send their children to private schools.
While AFT does not oppose the right of parents to choose
private education, we strongly oppose the direct or indirect
use of publicly funded vouchers, tax credits, IRAs, or other
such mechanisms to pay for private K-12 educational expenses.
It is essential to have an effective public education system
to realize equality of opportunity for all Americans. The way
to help all schools become more effective is by implementing
high academic standards, high behavioral standards, and
investing in needs such as new or improved school buildings.
AFT does support the Democratic school modernization
substitute for the Parent and Student Savings Account Act.
The school modernization substitute would provide federal tax
credits for the interest on special school modernization
bonds, at a five-year cost of $5 billion. This would leverage
approximately $22 billion of school modernization bonds--a
modest federal contribution to the $112 billion school
construction shortfall projected by the GAO.
We also support Senator Glenn's amendment to strike K-12
from the Coverdell IRA. If the Glenn amendment were adopted,
the Coverdell IRA would be exclusively for higher education
and not undermine support for K-12 public education.
If the Democratic School modernization amendment and the
Glenn Amendment fail, the American Federation of Teachers
urges you to oppose H.R. 2646.
Sincerely,
Gerald D. Morris,
Director of Legislation.
____

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
Washington, DC, March 11, 1998.
Dear Senator: This week the Senate may take up the proposed
Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act (S.1133),
sponsored by Senator Coverdell. The UAW strongly opposes this
legislation; we urge you to vote against this measure and to
oppose and attempt to invoke cloture when it is taken up by
the Senate.
The Coverdell bill would allow individuals to contribute up
to $2,000 per year to tax-free IRA type accounts for
elementary and secondary school expenses, including the
expenses associated with attending private and parochial
schools. In our judgment, these tax subsidies are simply
private school voucher by another name. This bill would
disproportionately favor privileged families who are more
likely to have money to put into their IRA type accounts than
are families with lower incomes. In addition, the legislation
would divert urgently needed funds from public schools,
thereby undermining our system of public education and
encouraging well to do families to send their children to
private and parochial schools.
The UAW understands that a substitute package may be
offered to S. 1133 that would fund school construction
projects designed to modernize public schools the UAW
supports this initiative to ensure that children across the
nation are able to learn in a safe, modern, well-equipped
school environment. We believe that federal policies should
direct limited resources into public schools where over 89
percent of American children are educated, not divert funds
to private and parochial schools.
For these reasons the UAW urges you to vote against the
Coverdell bill (S. 1133) and to oppose any attempt to invoke
cloture on this measure. We also urge you to support the
substitute proposal providing additional funds for school
construction. Thank you for considering our views on these
important issues.
Sincerely,
Alan Reuther,
Legislative Director.
____

American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, March 13, 1998.
Dear Senator: On behalf of 1.3 million members of the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), I strongly urge you to oppose the ``education
IRAs'' for private schools in S. 1133 and urge you to vote
against passage of this bill. Instead, we urge you to vote
for a substitute to be offered by Senator Carol Moseley-Braun
to provide tax credits to subsidize $22 billion for school
modernization bonds over 10 years. These bonds would enable
states and local public school districts, which serve more
than 90 percent of all students, to provide safe, modern
schools that are equipped to prepare students for the future.
The provision in S. 1133 creating tax-free savings accounts
to pay for private and religious schools would do nothing to
improve teaching or learning in our public schools. It would
disproportionately benefit wealthy families who already send
their children to private and religious schools.
This tax subsidy does nothing to raise academic standards
for all children, provide safe learning environments for
children, provide more teacher training, or increase parent
involvement in schools. Tax subsidies are private school
vouchers by another name. They would divert public resources
to support private education at a time when we need to do all
we can to improve our public schools. Please vote against S.
1133 and for the Moseley-Braun substitute.
Sincerely,
Gerald W. McEntee,
International President.
____

Hispanic Education Coalition,

April 20, 1998.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Hispanic Education Coalition
(HEC), an ad hoc coalition of national organizations
dedicated to improving educational opportunities for
Hispanics and other interested organizations, we are writing
to urge you to strengthen our educational infrastructure as
you begin debate and votes on S. 1133. In passing
transportation legislation, the Senate signaled that
transportation infrastructure is of vital national interest,
crucial to the economy and future development. Education is
equally important. Socially, politically, and economically,
education will be the determining factor in the quality of
life in our nation.
Please support Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun's amendment, in the
nature of a substitute, to provide critical federal resources
to help states and local education agencies modernize schools
and reduce class sizes. There is little disagreement that
across the nation, many of our public schools are in terrible
physical shape, placing our children's safety in jeopardy and
cheating them of access to critical educational tools.
Likewise, there is broad consensus that we are facing an
acute teacher shortage that will worsen as the current
teaching corps ages and the student population grows. Not
surprisingly, the schools that are in the worst condition and
suffer the most from teacher shortages are located in our
most disadvantaged and fastest growing communities. As a
nation, we can ill afford to poorly educate large segments of
tomorrow's workforce. Sen. Moseley-Braun's amendment will
move us toward resolving these pressing problems by
leveraging local resources to build, repair and modernize
schools and providing incentives that will help put more
qualified teachers in our classrooms.
We also encourage you to support Sen. Jeff Bingaman's
amendment to focus national attention on drop out prevention.
As stated in the Hispanic Dropout Project's final report, No
More Excuses, ``For students, dropping out forecloses a
lifetime of opportunities--and in turn makes it far more
likely that their own children will grow up in poverty and be
placed at risk. For business, this means a lack of high
skilled employees, fewer entrepreneurs, and poorer markets.
For communities, this cumulates the risk of civic
breakdown.'' For the Hispanic community, with a drop out rate
of nearly 30 percent, this issue is of paramount importance.
Unfortunately, two amendments that will be offered would
significantly undermine our education system and could do
real harm to many low-income students. Individual tax credits
will not improve our educational infrastructure, put quality
teachers into classrooms, nor improve the educational
achievement and attainment for our students. Secondly,
Federal resources that are carefully targeted are most
effective. Federal education programs were created to fill
gaps

[[Page S3346]]

that local and state governments allowed to occur. Block
grants would dilute the positive impact many of these
programs have made in providing opportunities for
disadvantaged students. Although these proposals may spark
interesting political debates, they do little to help us
accomplish the task at hand--ensuring that all children have
access to quality education.
Sincerely,
Patricia Loera,
HEC Co-Chair, National Association for Bilingual Education.
Raul Gonzalez,
HEC Co-Chair, National Council of La Raza.
On behalf of: Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities, League of United Latin American Citizens,
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National
Association for Migrant Education, and National HEP-CAMP
Association.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. This chart is a ``report card'' for America's
infrastructure, which was put together by the American Society of Civil
Engineers--not exactly a probureaucracy group. We can see mass transit
got a C; bridges, a C-minus; solid waste, a C-minus; waste water, a D-
plus; roads, a D-minus; but schools got an F. We clearly have a
problem.
A minimum $112 billion only begins to set up a partnership. Again, it
is not the grant program that the administration opposed several years
ago but a bureaucracy-free tax credit. We give local governments the
help we can best give them, which is access to the tax benefits that
this legislation provides. And from that assistance, from that modest
assistance that we as a national community give these local
governments, we will be able to go to the private sector, go to the
capital markets, and raise the money to begin to grapple with this
problem.
We have an ``F'' on schools in this country in terms of
infrastructure needs. I daresay the real tragedy here is that we have
not reached consensus yet that it is appropriate as a national
community that we come together in a partnership, that we work
together, instead of pointing fingers about what is wrong and pointing
the blame and saying it is this group's fault or the local property
taxpayer. We ought to work together to make certain issues like this
get resolved in behalf of the children of our country and the future of
this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment offered
by the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
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 New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
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
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner

NAYS--42

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

NOT VOTING--2

Bennett
Moynihan

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2292) was agreed
to.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Wellstone and Gregg amendments no longer be in order under the consent
agreement of March 27 and prior to third reading Senator Wellstone be
recognized for up to 15 minutes under his control and Senator Gorton
for up to 15 minutes under his control and Senator Harkin for up to 15
minutes under his control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a minute?
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wanted to explain the reason I voted the
way I did on the last amendment. I strongly support Senator Moseley-
Braun's amendment and approach.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order so the Senator
from Delaware can be heard.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Once again, Mr. President, as often occurs here, we are
presented with Hobson's choices. As I said, I have strongly supported
and continue to support the school construction initiatives of Senator
Moseley-Braun, but her amendment should have been added to the bill,
not given as an alternative to it. In order to vote for her amendment,
I would have had to vote against the guts of the Coverdell bill. I
support the essence of what Senator Coverdell is doing. So I voted
against Senator Moseley-Braun's amendment, although I strongly support
it and think we need to invest considerable amounts of money in school
construction.
I conclude by saying I only wish it had been an add-on to the
Coverdell bill, not in place of the Coverdell bill.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for
his remarks.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that debate only be in order
for the remainder of the session of the Senate today to be equally
divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, I announce
on behalf of the majority leader there will be no further votes this
evening.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that I will try to be
relatively brief.
I wish to speak to the agreement that the Senator from Georgia had
announced. Senator Gregg had an amendment that he wanted to bring to
the floor dealing with IDEA. Many of us were concerned about his
amendment. From my point of view, this was an amendment that I believe
threatened to undercut some of what I think has really been rich and
important about IDEA.
That is my own view. Many people in the disabilities community, many
parents of children are worried about it as well. IDEA is really a
pretty wonderful breakthrough for many families because up until the
mid seventies--I know Senator Harkin will speak about this later--there
were about 8 or 9 million children, many of whom felt shut out from the
schools. The concern we had was that this amendment might turn the
clock back. We did not want that to happen. It was our view it wasn't a
question of it might turn the clock back; we were worried that it
would. I guess the agreement we have reached is that now Senator Gregg
is going to withdraw the amendment.
I now want to speak about the amendment I am withdrawing. I want to
say to parents and people in the disabilities community, especially in
my

[[Page S3347]]

State of Minnesota, that I have withdrawn this amendment reluctantly,
but I understand their concern, and people really kind of got to my
heart because there was a tremendous amount of concern about this
amendment and I care fiercely about IDEA. I thought last year we had
reached a good bipartisan consensus. I think this amendment by Senator
Gregg is mistaken. I am glad it is now withdrawn. And when Senator
Harkin--who is one of my really close friends here, somebody whom I
have a tremendous amount of respect for and who has been probably, I
think, just a giant in the Senate when it comes to issues that affect
the disabilities community--said that he thought this agreement would
put his mind at ease, then I so agreed.
Mr. President, I will therefore offer the amendment that I had
initially had to the Coverdell bill to the higher education bill, which
makes a great deal of sense because that is really what this is about.
I think we can get a majority vote for this because this amendment is
very reasonable. Some Senators, such as Senator Ford from Kentucky,
Senator Levin from Michigan, Senator Durbin from Illinois, who are
among the original cosponsors, voted for the welfare bill. I voted
against the welfare bill, but that is not what this amendment is about.
What this amendment says is that we really have to fix the welfare
bill. We have to make a modification here because what's happening
around the country is that too many States are put in a position, in
order to meet the work participation requirements, of essentially
saying to single parents, almost all of them women with small children,
you have to leave school and take a job even if that job is maybe a $6-
an-hour job, and then a year later they will be worse off because they
don't receive any health care benefits.
This is shortsighted, and I do not think anybody intended this to
happen. What this amendment will say, I say to my colleague from
Georgia, is it will leave it up to States. There is no mandate at all.
It will just say that if the State of Minnesota--and I think my State
certainly wants to do this, or the State of Georgia or the State of
Kentucky so decides--the States can say to us, ``Look, we would like to
be able to give these parents, these women, 2 years of higher education
because they are on the path to economic self-sufficiency.'' Why would
you want to take them off that path?
These are the parents who have the best chance of completing at least
2 years of school and then obtaining a living wage job and doing better
for themselves and their children, and that this would not count
against the work force participation requirements that States now have
to meet. It would leave it entirely up to the States, but it would at
least give States that option.
I think my colleagues will be hearing from a lot of Governors and a
lot of States and the higher education community. I think it makes all
the sense in the world.
This surely is not what we intended. I do not think we intended,
under the framework of what is called welfare reform, to put States in
a position where States have to say to all too many women, ``Look, you
have to leave school.'' We ought to let these parents complete the
school and, therefore, they are going to do much better for themselves
and much better for their children as well.
Mr. President, I, therefore, want to make it clear that I will offer
this amendment. I see my colleague, the chairman of our Labor and Human
Resources Committee, Senator Jeffords, here. I wanted to do it on this
bill, but we got into this impasse. I care about IDEA. I didn't want us
to have some acrimonious debate and a lot of ill will. So I am
withdrawing the amendment; Senator Gregg is withdrawing his amendment.
Therefore, I will look for another vehicle.
The higher education bill is going to come before us. It is a good
bill, a bipartisan bill. This amendment, I promise colleagues, is as
reasonable as it can get. There is no reason in the world why we would
want to put States in a position and put too many parents in a position
of not being able to complete 2 years of education. It certainly would
make a huge difference to them.
Just one other word. I gather that we are going to talk about IDEA,
and Senator Gregg or Senator Gorton is going to want to come to the
floor and speak about that, and Senator Harkin can respond to what they
have to say. For my own part, I thought we had a really strong
agreement on IDEA. I think we should stick to that. It is a bipartisan
agreement. It is important to make sure that children who are disabled
have equal opportunities. I would hate to see us weaken this very, very
important step that we have taken as a Senate. We will not be dealing
with that debate tonight. But this amendment on higher education will
be there.
I also want to say one other thing to my colleagues, and then I will
finish.
Again, please look at the evidence that is coming in. What you are
going to see with the welfare bill is that in all too many cases, we
have now seen a reduction in the caseload, that is true, but it does
not equal the reduction of poverty, which is where we should be
heading. Too many of these parents are finding jobs, but they pay
barely minimum wage without any health care benefits.
In addition, the child care arrangements are really rather
frightening, and too many small children, prekindergarten children, are
not receiving good developmental child care. Too many children who are
age 4 are home alone, and too many children are going home from school
alone.
We really have to look at what is happening, because a year from now
or 2 years from now or 3 years from now, depending on the States, there
is going to be a drop-dead date certain, and there will be no
assistance. We have to know whether these families are reaching
economic self-sufficiency, and the best way these families can do that
is for that mother to be able to get an education.
If we want real welfare reform or we want to reduce poverty or we
want to have a stable middle class in our country, there is nothing
more important to do than to make sure that we focus on a good
education and a good job. That is what this amendment is about.
I thank my colleague from Georgia for his graciousness. I hope when I
offer this amendment there will be good, strong support. I yield the
floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from
Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by the
Senator from Minnesota and the accord and cooperation by all parties
concerned in facilitating the debate on this education proposal. I
thank my colleague for his comments.
Because of the large number of amendments on this measure, it has
been difficult at times for Senators to know when they might make a
comment. Senator Grams has been here most of this afternoon. Now that
we are in this open period--and I know Senator Jeffords also was here--
I hope that some accord can be shown our two colleagues who have been
waiting to make a comment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to take a few minutes
this afternoon to rise and speak in support of Senator Coverdell's
education bill, S. 1133.
Mr. President, today the Senate continues its debate on this very
important bill, a bill that is really out to promote education
alternatives. It is a far-reaching bill which advances educational
options, one which promotes quality education where it can best be
achieved and that, Mr. President, is at the local level and by family
involvement. It is sound policy, and I believe it is long overdue.
S. 1133, the Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act, is a modest
bill, but it is a very important step forward for restoring
decisionmaking authority in the hands of parents and families and,
again, this is where that authority belongs.
The heart of this bill is simply a measure that would allow families
to save for their children's education and without tax penalty.
S. 1133 is the Senate's version of the education IRA which has
already passed in the House. The bill, commonly referred to as the A+
savings accounts, would expand the college educational savings accounts
established

[[Page S3348]]

in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and that would then include primary
and secondary education as well.
A+ accounts would also increase the maximum allowable annual
contributions from $500 to $2,000 per child. The money could be used
without tax penalty to pay for a variety of education-related expenses
for students in K through 12, as well as college expenses.
A number of mega-dollar, pumped-up political Band-Aids are being
offered in the form of amendments to the A+ accounts legislation. It
would be nice to think that we could solve the problem of education by
just spending more and more money, but unfortunately, that does not
work. The United States is the world leader in national spending per
student.
Again, the United States is the world leader in national spending per
student. Yet, our test scores show that our system is failing our
children. Test results released in February show that American high
school seniors scored far below their peers from other countries in
math and science. Education Secretary Riley called the scores
``unacceptable'' and indicated that schools are failing to establish
appropriate academic standards.
Legislation like A+ accounts would help direct responsibility and
accountability, again, where it belongs--at the family level where
families can make decisions and take responsibility for their
children's education. The A+ accounts legislation includes many
important legislative initiatives beyond the savings accounts. For
instance, it fosters employer-supported education for employees by
extending the tax credit to the year 2002. I hear time and time again
employers are desperate for well-trained employees, and this
legislation allows them to continue to provide that training.
Graduate level courses would be permitted under this exclusion as
well as undergraduate courses. If we are ever going to be able to
tackle the shortage of high-tech employees, this tax incentive is very
crucial.
Additionally, the A+ accounts bill would assist local governments in
issuing bonds for school construction by increasing the small-issuer
exemption from $10 million to $15 million, provided that at least $10
million of the bonds are issued to finance public schools.
It is estimated that 600 schools would be improved under this
legislation. Our bill also provides tax-free treatment for students who
receive National Health Corps scholarships. Students can thereby
exclude the scholarship value from their taxable income. That would
provide further important education assistance when it is most needed.
A complimentary amendment to the A+ accounts is the Investment in
America's Future bill. That was Senator Gorton's block granting
amendment. Under this bill, most federally funded K-12 programs, except
for special education, would have been consolidated and the dollars
sent directly to local school districts--free from the usual Washington
red tape. This would have ensured our education dollars would go to
students, as opposed to going to bureaucrats. The Gorton amendment was
not a cutting measure.
The bill maintained that if Federal funding were to fall below the
levels agreed to in the 1997 budget agreement, then the program would
revert back to funding categorical programs.
Mr. President, there are a number of additional amendments, crucial
for education, which greatly enhance the core A+ accounts legislation.
The teacher testing and merit pay amendment would serve to retain
competent teachers by providing incentives to States to implement
programs geared at rewarding successful, high-quality teachers.
The Coats amendment would increase to 110 percent deductions that
individuals and families could take on charitable contributions to
schools and programs aimed at poor children.
Another important amendment would expand literacy programs that are
so important to assist in poverty areas. So this simple and modest bill
fosters education through families, through employers, and through
local governments. We could accomplish so much through the A+ accounts
package.
Common sense would have had us pass these measures a long time ago.
But, unfortunately, tired, groundless attacks continue to hang on. And
the charge I hear most frequently is that ``education savings accounts
and tax breaks for parents would shift tax dollars away from public
schools.'' That simply is not the case.
More education dollars under parental control would actually promote
education by encouraging parents to save, to invest in, and support
programs and materials that facilitate and help provide the right
option for a child's education. Nothing, Mr. President, would be taken
away from public education resources--nothing.
The A+ accounts help working families by encouraging savings and
enabling families to make plans which shape a child's future. They are
directed at low- and middle-income families, not at the wealthy
families which currently have more educational options for their
children.
It seems ironic to me that some of the loudest opponents of these
savings accounts are high-income and high-option individuals who can
now afford to send their own children to private schools--and often do.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the great majority of
families expected to take advantage of the education savings accounts
are families that have incomes of $75,000 or less. These are the
families who need those savings options and need the incentives the
most.
So, Mr. President, the bill provides educational alternatives for
working families. These are very important options to improve the
education of our children. I urge my colleagues to join in and support
this very important education initiative.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we just finished a vote on the
controversial Moseley-Braun amendment related to school construction.
There is no question about the tremendous school infrastructure needs
throughout this Nation. Well over $180 billion are necessary to bring
the schools up to some appropriate standard.

However, as was very aptly pointed out, and no doubt was one reason
that the amendment was defeated, it is States that have the primary
responsibility for that construction. It is not a constitutional
responsibility of this body.
I just bring to the attention of the body a chart that was discussed
earlier today. Quoting the words of the Clinton administration:

The construction and renovation of school facilities has
traditionally been the responsibility of state and local
governments, financed primarily by local taxpayers. We are
opposed to the creation of a new Federal grant program for
school construction.

I want people to keep that in mind when they consider what I have to
say.
Under the Constitution, the District of Columbia, the Capital of the
United States, is, in the view of Congress, at least in the writings,
are our responsibility as a state legislature is to a State. We, the
Members of the Congress of the United States, are responsible for the
infrastructure of this city and its school system. And we should be
ashamed of our negligence in that regard. The neglect did not occur
over a few years; it has occurred over decades.
So, the deficit in the school infrastructure is the responsibility of
all of those who have been in power, whether it was the local
governments to whom we gave the power in the 1970s and 1980s or whether
it was the Congress that was in power before that. Everyone has
neglected the school infrastructure. There is no question that the
Nation's Capital, for which Congress is responsible, has one of the
worst school infrastructures in the Nation.
Again, this fall, the DC schools did not open on time. How that
happened is another story that could be discussed some other time. But
the bottom line is that it was because of the dilapidated conditions of
the schools. The students marched to make us all aware of what was
happening.
I now show you a chart that appeared as a photograph in the
Washington Post on Wednesday, October 8th, in

[[Page S3349]]

which the students say, ``Why should students suffer for adult
incompetence?'' It should be ``For congressional incompetence,''
because we are responsible for those schools being closed. The question
is, what should we do about it?
I voted against the Moseley-Braun amendment because I felt that that
money, which would be more than adequate to fix up the D.C. schools,
should be utilized for that purpose. I am not pushing this issue right
now for this reason: Last year, I raised the issue of funding the
construction of the DC public schools to bring them up to standard. I
almost got $1 billion in the Finance Committee. That effort failed by
one vote. We did end up with $50 million coming out of the Senate. But
in the reconciliation bill, even the $50 million was dropped.
Why? Because it was said that there were better programs to be
financed by the Federal Government to help the District of Columbia
than to help the school system. I violently disagree with that. At the
same time, the Director of OMB said that he would work with me this
year to find the money for the schools, as did other members of the
Finance Committee. The members of the conference committee also said
that they would help. Thus I have formed a working group with the OMB
Director, Frank Raines, and other Members of both the House and the
Senate, and we will be working over the next month or two to be able to
try to find out what we can do to make sure that these schools get
brought up to proper standards.
Congress is not meeting its obligation. The infrastructure repair
requirements--just to bring schools up to modern standards--is $2
billion. That is with a ``b,'' $2 billion, to give the students in this
city the necessary funds to fix up the schools. The District is the
size of a small State--population-wise, about the size of Vermont. That
we are not able to help these kids is a travesty. There is no excuse
for that.
Also, if you want to look at the DC schools compared to the rest of
the country, we have a chart. The red bar is where D.C. is on critical
areas in need of repairs, and the yellow is the national average.
The national total is $180 billion necessary to bring schools up to
proper standards--not very good. But if you compare the national
average with the D.C. schools, my God, look at that. Exterior walls and
windows, 72 percent of DC schools are inadequate. The national average
is 27 percent. Sixty-seven percent of the roofs on the schools in this
city are in bad need of repair, 65 percent of the heating and
ventilation needs repair, and 65 percent of the plumbing needs repair.
Electrical lighting, 53 percent. That is just not acceptable. We should
be ashamed.
It is our responsibility to make sure that those repairs are made.
However, not only have we not done that, but in 1974 when we created
home rule, we prohibited the District from raising its own money from
the most likely source to repair its schools. How did we do that? Well,
the Senators from Virginia and Maryland very cleverly put a provision
in the act that says the District cannot tax the income of nonresident
workers. Every State in the Union that has a tax on income, taxes the
income of nonresidents.
Every city in a multistate area that has an income tax also taxes the
income of nonresidents. So in prohibiting a commuter tax in DC, we have
precluded District residents from generating the revenues to improve
the physical infrastructure of the schools. The District has to have a
revenue stream to be able to raise the bonds in order to pay for the
school repairs.
We in Congress have the responsibility to repair the schools, and we
have prevented the local government from raising the money using the
most logical source to fix those schools.
What must we do? We have a number of options. I first point out that
the closing of the schools this past fall demonstrates the necessity of
funding the school repairs. In this regard, I want to clear up
something for the record. A lot of blame has been heaped on General
Becton, the school superintendent. Actually, what happened was that the
citizen's group, Parents United, brought a lawsuit to ensure proper
repairs while some repairs were already in process of being made. The
work was planned so the schools wouldn't have to be closed, but the
judge, who got fed up with city's inability to repair the schools,
said, ``No, you are not going to open the schools until you complete
the repairs.'' This then created a panic, because the school
administrators had to search all of a sudden to find contractors to get
the schools fixed to then get the schools re-opened. That process, as a
subsequent GAO analysis showed, ended up adding expense to the
renovation process.
It is important for us to recognize that before we go home this year,
before we fix schools in other areas, it is our responsibility to fix
the schools of this city. We are constitutionally responsible. I am
hopeful that in the days ahead, when our DC schools working group
meets, our task will be to figure out how Congress is going to find the
necessary $2 billion in the years ahead, either through some revenue
stream created for the District or by utilization of Federal funds. We
have to do that. We cannot allow this travesty to continue for the
young people of D.C. when we have a constitutional responsibility to
fix their schools.
I am hopeful that as we go forward, we will be able to work together,
both sides of the aisle, to find a solution to this inexcusable
travesty for the young people of Washington.
I want to make sure that my colleagues understand that what I have
said is valid. First, we have a letter from Dr. Brimmer, the head of
the control board, which indicates that it is impossible to create a
revenue stream for the DC schools under the present fiscal situation of
the city, nor does the school district have the authority to create a
dedicated revenue source. Therefore, it would be necessary for Congress
to do something to acquire the necessary money for construction and
repairs of the school system.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority,
Washington, DC, February 9, 1998.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I appreciate your continued support of
the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and the
opportunity to provide you with information on the outlook
for the DCPS capital program.
Simply put, the school system must rely upon the District
of Columbia government for its capital improvement funds and
the City government's related bonding capacity. The General
Services Administration has estimated the total cost of
repairing and improving the District's educational facilities
at more than $2 billion Years of deferred maintenance have
left the DCPS education facilities in a state of extreme
disrepair.
District school officials estimate that between $20 million
and $30 million may be realized from the sale of former
school properties in the next year. All of the proceeds from
these sales will be used for school capital improvements.
While these funding sources are substantial, they are finite
infusions. Recent additions of capital improvement funds,
principally through your efforts, from the privatization of
Connie Lee and Sallie Mae, have raised $18.25 million and
$36.8 million, respectively. These have greatly enhanced the
capital program. However, the sums made available through
these means, even when added to the District's current annual
capacity to borrow for school repairs and improvements, are
woefully inadequate. They do not fully fund the program
developed to bring the DCPS facilities into the new
millennium.
In February, 1997, the DCPS issued its first Long Range
Facilities Master Plan covering the years 1997 through 2007.
This plan, updated in July, 1997, sets out goals and plans
for emergency repairs, right sizing, stabilization, and
modernization of the District's public school facilities.
Without additional resources, which are not now in sight,
this program cannot be fully implemented, and its goals
(including equipping schools with modern technology) cannot
be achieved.
The only continuing source of funding available to the
District is its annual capital borrowing program. This source
must bear not only a school repair burden, but also the
significant infrastructure needs, including the requirements
of roads and bridges, of the rest of the District government.
This capital program has been limited to approximately $150
million for the entire city in recent years. This is due
to the District's statutory limitation on the amount of
debt, as a percentage of total revenue, that the city is
allowed to carry. Given this limitation, and past
commitments to the Washington Metro system, the District
can only afford to commit approximately $30 million to
public school capital annually, while the annual capital
improvement need is well in excess of $100 million.

[[Page S3350]]

The Authority continues to evaluate alternatives, including
a non-profit corporation financing vehicle and a dedicated
revenue stream. However, to date none of these alternatives
appears to achieve the needed capital funds flow to DCPS
without a negative effect on the City's other capital needs.
It is also important to note that, for fiscal year 1997, the
Federal government provided a Federal Payment (in-lieu-of-
taxes) to the Nation's Capital. The District of Columbia
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997
(Revitalization Act) repealed the authorization for such a
payment and replaced it with a Federal Contribution of $190
million for fiscal year 1998, with no specific authorization
beyond that year. The President's budget for fiscal year 1999
makes no request for the Federal Contribution. This puts
further stress on the District's revenue sources and amounts
that can be obtained through a capital borrowing program.
Your efforts on behalf of the District's school children is
recognized and appreciated by this District's citizens and
leaders. I hope that this information will be useful to you.
Sincerely yours,
Andrew F. Brimmer,
Chairman.

Mr. JEFFORDS. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record the testimony of Professor Raskin from hearings I held in
January. It addresses the constitutionality of Congress' responsibility
for those schools. As a constitutional scholar, his testimony justifies
what I think has become obvious from the debate, that the Congress has
a responsibility to provide for the D.C. schools infrastructure.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[Attachment 1A]

Testimony of Professor Jamin B. Raskin Before the Senate Labor and
Human Resources Committee, January 13, 1998

The Constitution confers on Congress the same powers over
the District of Columbia that states have within their
domains. In 1899, the Supreme Court stated that Congress
``may exercise within the District all the legislative powers
that the legislature of a state might exercise within the
state . . . so long as it does not contravene any provision
of the constitution of the United States.'' \1\ In 1932, the
Court found that the District Clause endows Congress with
``all the powers of legislation which may be exercised by a
state in dealing with its affairs, so long as other
provisions of the Constitution are not infringed.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, Congress has a structural responsibility for
education in the District, and this is a responsibility that
must be executed in a constitutional way. In 1954, when the
Supreme Court struck down racial segregation in public
schools in the states as a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it also struck down racial segregation in public
schools in the District of Columbia as a violation of the
Fifth Amendment. This was Bolling v. Sharpe,\3\ the unsung
companion case to Brown v. Board of Education, which ended a
century of Congressional segregation of public schools in
D.C. and malign neglect of the black population.
Even after Bolling v. Sharpe, however, Congress oversaw a
system of what federal District Court Judge J. Skelly Wright
in 1967 called ``racially and socially homogeneous schools''
that ``damage the minds and spirits of all children who
attend them'' and ``block the attainment of the broader goals
of democratic education.'' \4\ In Hobson v. Hansen that year,
the court found that the Congressionally-appointed school
board, which had a maximum quota of three black members of
nine (later changed to four), had effectively segregated the
schools by race and class and created ``optional zones for
the purpose of allowing white children, `trapped' in a Negro
school district to `escape' to a `white' or more nearly white
school, thus making the economic and racial segregation of
the public school children more complete than it would
otherwise be under a strict neighborhood assignment plan.''
\5\
The Hobson court also found that teachers and principals
were assigned according to their race and the race of their
students, that a tracking system was used to divide students
according to race and class and consigned many students to an
inferior and demeaning education, and that reading scores
fell increasingly behind the national norm in each grade.\6\
Thus, although Congress clearly has an ultimate
constitutional responsibility for schooling in the district,
it is one that it has not generally lived up to, except by
court order. Even now, we see that the Emergency School Board
of Trustees, appointed by the Control Board, is an illegally
created body. So now would be a good time to figure out how
Congress can best fulfill its very real obligations to the
District and its children.
On this question, I just have two quick points. First,
unlike the citizens of the fifty states, residents of the
District have no state constitution to fall back on in order
to demand equality of resources and excellence of result in
the educational process, something that has taken place in
dozens of states. Thus, as you know, the Supreme Court's
decision in San Antonio v. Rodriguez,\7\ holding that
education is not a fundamental right and that disparate
funding of schools does not violate Equal Protection, is the
barren and controlling constitutional framework for the
District. This makes it all the more important that Congress
try to take the rights of the people and the needs of the
children seriously. As the Court put it in Brown v. Board,
``education is perhaps the most important function of state
and local governments.''
But, second, this is a delicate matter since education, as
the Court observed in Rodriguez, is also a public function
jealously guarded by local governments, one in our nation's
history that has been traditionally the province of the local
community itself. So, Congress must also act with maximum
respect and deference for the wishes of the local population,
the American citizens who live there. Thus, your presumption
should be that matters of fundamental educational policy
should be decided by the local school board and elected
officials so long as they do not implicate an independent
federal interest that would justify congressional action
under the District Clause. On matters of proposed departures
from existing educational policy, such as the school voucher
proposal currently in play, Congress should allow the
District of make up its own mind in the way that every other
locality in America is getting to choose for itself. Nothing
could be more averse to the spirit of federalism, democratic
government and local control over education than to have
members of Congress elected from other jurisdictions deciding
such basic matters for the people of the District
themselves.
We must never forget that the District is part of America
and its citizens have all the rights of other Americans. In
1933 in O'Donoghue v. United States,\8\ Justice Sutherland
recited explained why District residents may not be treated
as second-class citizens:
``It is important to bear constantly in mind that the
District was made up of portions of two of the original
states of the Union, and was not taken out of the Union by
cession. Prior thereto its inhabitants were entitled to all
the rights, guaranties, and immunities of the Constitution,
among which was the right to have their cases arising under
the Constitution heard and determined by federal courts
created under, and vested with the judicial power conferred
by Article 3. We think it is not reasonable to assume that
the cession stripped them of these rights, and that it was
intended that at the very seat of the national government the
people should be less fortified by the guaranty of an
independent judiciary than in other parts of the Union.''
Justice Sutherland quoted the Court's opinion in Downes v.
Bidwell \9\ to the same effect, emphasizing that the District
clause had not subtracted constitutional rights from people
who already had them as citizens of states:
``This District had been a part of the states of Maryland
and Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and
was a part of the United States. The Constitution had
attached to it irrevocably. There are steps which can never
be taken backward. * * * The mere cession of the District of
Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority
of the states, but it did not take it out of the United
States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. Neither
party had ever consented to that construction of the cession.
If, before the District was set off, Congress had passed an
unconstitutional act affecting its inhabitants, it would have
been void. If done after the District was created, it would
have been equally void; in other words, Congress could not do
indirectly, by carving out the District, what it could not do
directly. The District still remained a part of the United
States, protected by the Constitution.'' \10\
Thus, in closing, I would say that you walk a tightrope
here, the way that all states do when the get involved in the
essentially local issue of education. On the one hand, you
have a basic constitutional and indeed moral responsibility
to see to it that excellent education for effective
democratic citizenship is made available to all children in
the District regardless of race, ethnicity, language, income,
social status, geography, and disability. On the other hand,
as much as possible, you must respect the basic American
principles of local control over education, democratic
participation, and one person-one vote. These I would see as
your basic constitutional responsibilities.

FOOTNOTES

\1\ Capital Traction C. V. Hof., 174 U.S. 1, 5 (applying the
Seventh Amendment right to jury trial to the District of
Columbia).
\2\ Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. U.S., 286 U.S. 427, 435
(finding that Congress, like a state, has power under the
District Clause to criminalize local conspiracies in restrain
of trade in the District of Columbia).
\3\ 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
\4\ Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F.Supp. 401 (1967).
\5\ Id. at 406.
\6\ Id.
\7\ 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
\8\ 289 U.S. 516, 544 (finding that the local courts of the
District of Columbia are Article III courts for
constitutional purposes, unlike territorial courts which ``
`are incapable of receiving [Article III judicial power].'
'').
\9\ 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
\10\ O'Donaghue, 289 U.S. at 541 (quoting Downes, 182 U.S. at
260-61).

Mr. JEFFORDS. Also, for those who have additional interest in this
issue, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of
all the States that have an income tax and whether or not those states
tax the income of

[[Page S3351]]

nonresidents. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed a list with
similar information about cities that impose taxes on nonresidents. It
shows that every city in a multistate area that has an income tax also
taxes the income of nonresidents.
Somebody may point out that Baltimore does not, but Baltimore, as you
know, is flanked on two sides by water and on two other sides by the
State of Maryland. It cannot therefore be construed as a city in a
multistate area.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

May 21, 1979.

[Attachment 4B]

The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service

states which have a nonresident income tax

Alabama: Nonresidents taxed on income from property owned
or business transacted in the State (Sec. 40-18-5).
Alaska: Nonresidents taxed on income attributable to Alaska
sources (Sec. 43-20-035) Tax repealed Jan. 1, 1979.
Arizona: Nonresidents taxed on income from activities or
sources within the State (Sec. 43-102).
Arkansas: Nonresidents taxed on income from property owned
and businesses, trade or occupation transacted within the
State (Sec. 84-2003).
California: Nonresidents taxed on income from sources
within the State (Sec. 17951).
Colorado: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from sources
within the State (Sec. 39-22-110).
Connecticut: No income tax. Tax subsequently instated.
Nonresidents taxed on income derived from or connected with
sources within the State.
Delaware: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from
Delaware sources (Sec. 1102).
District of Columbia: Nonresidents are not taxed.
Florida: No income tax.
Georgia: Nonresidents are taxed on income derived from
certain specified activities carried on in the State
including from employment, business, trade (Secs. 92-3003,
92-3112).
Hawaii: Nonresidents taxed on the income derived from
Hawaii sources (Sec. 235-4).
Idaho: Nonresidents taxed on income from certain specified
activities within the State (Sec. 63-3027A).
Illinois: Nonresidents taxed on income attributable to
certain activities within the State (Ch. 120 Sec. 3-301
through 304).
Indiana: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from Indiana
sources (Sec. 6-3-2-1).
Iowa: Nonresidents taxed on income derived within the State
(Sec. 442.5 and 422.6).
Kansas: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from Kansas
sources (Sec.
Kentucky: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from sources
within Kentucky (Sec. 141.020).
Louisiana: Nonresidents taxed on Louisiana income (Sec. 47-
291, 47-293).
Maine: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from sources
within Maine (Sec. 5140, 5142).
Maryland: Nonresidents taxed on income from tangible
personal property permanently located in Maryland, income
from a trade or business or occupation carried on the
Maryland, and State lottery prizes (Sec. 287).
Massachusetts: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from
sources within the State (Sec. 5A).
Michigan: Nonresidents taxed on income allocable to sources
within Michigan (Sec. 206.51, 206.110).
Minnesota: Nonresidents taxed on income allocable to
sources within Minnesota (Sec. 290.01).
Mississippi: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from
sources within Mississippi (Sec. 27-7-5, 27-7-23).
Missouri: Nonresidents taxed on income from sources within
Missouri (Sec. 143.041).
Montana: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from property
owned and business carried on in Montana (Sec. 15-30-105).
Nebraska: Nonresidents taxed on income attributable to
Nebraska sources (Sec. 77-2715).
Nevada: No income tax.
New Hampshire: No income tax (only interest and dividends).
New Jersey: Nonresidents taxed on certain categories of
income earned or acquired in New Jersey (Sec. 54A:5-5).
New Mexico: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from
property or employment in New Mexico (Sec. 7-2-3, 7-2-7).
New York: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from New
York sources (Sec. 632).
North Carolina: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from
North Carolina sources (Sec. 105-136).
North Dakota: Nonresidents taxed on income from property
owned or business conducted in North Dakota (Sec. 57-38-03).
Ohio: Nonresidents taxed on income earned or received in
Ohio (Sec. 5747.02).
Oklahoma: Nonresidents taxed on Oklahoma taxable income
(Sec. 2362).
Oregon: Nonresidents taxed on income from Oregon sources
(Sec. 316.037).
Pennsylvania: Nonresidents taxed on income from
Pennsylvania sources (Sec. 7302).
Rhode Island: Nonresidents taxed on income from Rhode
Island sources (Sec. 44-30-32 and 33).
South Carolina: Nonresidents taxed on income from property
or business in South Carolina (Sec. 12-7-20 and 210).
South Dakota: No income tax.
Tennessee: No income tax (just dividends).
Texas: No income tax.
Utah: Nonresidents taxed on income from Utah sources (Sec.
59-14A-6).
Vermont: Nonresidents taxed on Vermont income (Sec. 5811,
5823).
Virginia: Nonresidents taxed on Virginia taxable income
(Sec. 58-151.013).
Washington: No income tax.
West Virginia: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from
West Virginia sources (Sec. 11-21-32).
Wisconsin: Nonresidents taxed on income derived from
Wisconsin (Sec. 71.01).
Wyoming: No income tax.

Marine B. Morris,

Legislative Attorney,
American Law Division.

[Attachment 4D]

TABLE 1.--SELECTED LARGE CITIES WITH AN INCOME TAX ON NONRESIDENTS: TAX
RATE ON RESIDENTS AND NONRESIDENTS AND TYPE OF TAX BASE
[Cities listed alphabetically by state]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resident Nonresident
City rate rate Tax base
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham, AL................ 1.0 1.0 Earned income.
Los Angeles................... 0.825 0.825 Employer payroll
or business
gross receipts.
San Francisco, CA............. 1.50 1.50 Do.
Wilmington, DE................ 1.25 1.25 Payroll/earned
income.
Indianapolis--Marion Co., IN.. 0.7 0.175 State AGI.
Louisville, KY................ 2.2 1.45 Occ. lic. tax on
wages and net
profits.
Detroit, MI................... 3.0 1.5 Income earned
and received in
the city.
Kansas City................... 1.0 1.0 Nonresidents
taxed on
earnings or net
profits from
activities
conducted in
the city.
St. Louis, MO................. 1.0 1.0 Do.
Newark, NJ.................... 1.0 1.0 Employer payroll
tax.
New York...................... 2.7-3.4 (\1\) State taxable
income.
Yonkers, NY................... 15.0 0.5 Net state tax.
Akron......................... 2.0 2.0 (\2\).
Cincinnati.................... 2.1 2.1 (\2\).
Cleveland..................... 2.0 2.0 (\2\).
Dayton........................ 2.25 2.25 (\2\).
Warren, OH.................... 1.75 1.75 (\2\).
Philadelphia.................. 4.86 4.2256 Earned income
and net
profits.
Pittsburgh, PA................ 2.875 1.0 Do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 0.45 wages/.65 self-employment.
\2\ Earned compensation and net profits of unincorporated business.

Mr. JEFFORDS. There is no excuse for our inability to fulfill our
responsibility to make sure that these schools are brought up to code
compliance and modern standards.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just a few moments ago, the manager of
this bill had a vehicle for a wide-ranging debate over Federal
education policy and received unanimous consent to withdraw from
consideration the Gregg amendment.
Because the Gregg amendment was identical to an amendment that I
offered last year in debate over the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, and because the Gregg amendment perhaps created more
interest on the part of school authorities, school board members,
superintendents, principals, and teachers, than any other amendment
being debated this week, it seemed important to me to explain to
educators all across the country why the debate on the Gregg amendment
or the Gregg-Gorton amendment will not be pursued during the course of
the debate on this Coverdell A+ bill.
Violence in our schools--assaults, the carrying into schools of guns
and other dangerous weapons, disruptive behavior that threatens the
safety and security of the educational environment, disruptive behavior
that detracts from the educational experience of all students--is an
increasingly serious problem.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the purposes of
which are not only praiseworthy but in some respects essential in
guaranteeing to all students, including even the most severely
disabled, the opportunity for a public education that will allow them
to live to the maximum of their capacities, nevertheless includes
within it a set of provisions relating to safety, to discipline, and to
the orderly nature of our classrooms that amounts to a clear and
explicit double standard and, in an increasing number of cases,
severely detracts from the educational atmosphere for all of the
students of such a school.
In Seattle, late last month, a student designated ``disabled''
attacked other students with a knife on a schoolbus. In Louisiana, a
teacher was attacked and hospitalized. In several States, as

[[Page S3352]]

we know, assaults with guns have actually resulted in the deaths of
students and of teachers. In Danbury, CT, parents picketed a school and
withdrew their children from the school because two students were
suspended for a mere 10 days for bringing a gun into the school
atmosphere.
The Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle's morning newspaper--not a
newspaper from which I often quote--wrote an editorial shortly after
the incident that took place on that Seattle school bus that reads, in
part, as follows:

Tuesday's stabbing incident involving a student aboard a
Seattle school district bus has called attention to unwise
provisions of Federal law that apparently require more
tolerance of dangerous behavior by special education
students.
If the school district really is required by law to allow
students back into class who carry weapons or otherwise have
demonstrated intent to harm others, that law is in error and
must be changed.
. . . In this school year, there have been four or five
instances in which special education students have been
accepted back into school even though they had carried
weapons, according to Brenda Little, an assistant legal
counsel for the district.
Before a special education student can be disciplined, said
Little, principals are required by Federal law to prove that
the child understood the consequences of his or her behavior
and that it was not related to the student's disability.
That's a prescription for disaster.
If a child carries a weapon to school, it is irrelevant
whether that child understands the possible consequences of
doing so.
. . . In fact, if the child doesn't understand the
consequences, that's all the more reason to remove that child
from situations where other children may be harmed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be
printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Cut No Slack for Weapons Bearers

Tuesday's stabbing incident involving a student aboard a
Seattle School District bus has called attention to unwise
provisions of federal law that apparently require more
tolerance of dangerous behavior by special education
students.
If the school district really is required by law to allow
students back into class who carry weapons or otherwise have
demonstrated intent to harm others, that law is in error and
must be changed.
The bottom line is this: There is no case to be made for
extending special civil rights protections to anyone if doing
so results in threats to the safety of others.
This is especially so in public schools.
``Mainstreaming''--educating special education students with
others--is good. But there are cases where it may have its
limits, and safety is one of them.
School administrators cannot tolerate threats to children
regardless of who poses that threat. There can be no double
standard in this matter. It's not rational public policy to
tie the hands of those who have legal responsibility for
ensuring the safety of students.
A 13-year old Denny Middle School special education student
has been expelled for the stabbing, but he could be back in
class within 10 days despite the district's zero-tolerance
for weapons. That's because the district has to jump through
higher hoops to expel special education students.
``We have to take kids back that would ordinarily not be
allowed to return,'' said Denny Middle School principal Pat
Batiste-Brown, alluding to the newly tightened federal
regulations for special education students who break rules.
Twenty percent of the students in her school are classified
as special education students.
In this school year, there have been four or five instances
in which special education students have been accepted back
into school even though they had carried weapons, according
to Brenda Little, an assistant legal counsel for the
district.
Before a special education student can be disciplined, said
Little, principals are required by federal law to prove that
the child understood the consequences of his or her behavior
and that it was not related to the student's disability.
That's a prescription for disaster.
If a child carries a weapon to school, it is irrelevant
whether that child understands the possible consequences of
doing so.
In fact, if the child doesn't understand the consequences,
that's all the more reason to remove that child from
situations where other children may be harmed.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the editorial is correct; it is correct in
its understanding and it is correct in its policy judgments.
In Louisiana, the Shreveport Times reports in an article about the
Gregg-Gorton amendment that Louisiana Department of Education revealed
that there were 22,790 out-of-school suspensions in special education
in the 1996-97 school year. . . . The Bossier Parish school board led
the fight for more local control by signing a resolution last week that
supports Gorton and Gregg. . . . Bossier School superintendent Jane
Smith vowed that if a special education student posed a considerable
safety threat, such as bringing a gun to class, the parish would treat
him or her like a regular education student regardless of the Federal
laws.
In other words, Mr. President, we have a law, we have a statute, we
have a set of regulations that actually causes a school superintendent
to say that this is so bad, this is so dangerous to the students I am
attempting to educate that I will simply defy the law. The Seattle
school district hasn't taken that position.
In Danbury, Connecticut, parents had to picket and take their kids
out of school because of the requirements of the statute that literally
sets up a double standard. School districts have plenary authority over
safety and discipline and an appropriate educational atmosphere for all
of their regular students. They now have almost none--very limited
rights to oppose discipline on students denominated ``disabled.'' And
don't think that this country isn't full of imaginative lawyers who can
come up with a plausible case to denominate a student ``disabled.'' In
fact, often they use the very violent or safety-threatening activity of
the student to demonstrate that a particular student is disabled.
The Gorton-Gregg amendment was very simple and very short. I believe
that our colleagues ought to be reminded of exactly what it said. I am
going to read it now:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act, each State educational agency or
local educational agency may establish and implement uniform
policies with respect to discipline and order applicable to
all children within its jurisdiction to ensure safety and an
appropriate educational atmosphere in its schools.

That's all. That is the entire proposal.
Well, when I made this proposal last year on my own, 47 Members of
this body--just 3 short of the number needed to pass it--voted in favor
of it. Several members who have voted against it have come to me since
then to say that the combination of the reauthorization of IDEA, and
the even more prescriptive regulations now proposed by the U.S.
Department of Education, and the reactions of their own school boards,
have caused them to rethink the issue. As a consequence, I believe that
there is a very real chance that the Gorton-Gregg amendment would have
been accepted by this body had we presented it.
But I must say, in a very interesting side line, that it truly cross-
pressured our school board members, our superintendents, our
principals, our teachers, and our PTA members because, of course, by
and large, they don't much like the Coverdell bill. They recognize that
the Coverdell bill is very likely to pass, that it will be presented to
the President and the President will veto it. So a combination of the
proposition that the President would veto this amendment in connection
with the veto of the Coverdell bill and their own opposition to Senator
Coverdell has caused them to be less than enthusiastic about pursuing
it at this time.

That is a valid concern, Mr. President. Both Senator Gregg and I
would like to accomplish our goal, would like to see to it that schools
have restored to them the authority to keep order and to provide for
the safety and security of their students. We feel this way in spite of
the fact that we are strong supporters of the Coverdell bill.
A second element is involved. The amendment can be read to cover two
closely related, nonetheless distinct, subjects. One of those is the
pure physical safety and security of students in schools; that is to
say, allowing schools to take disciplinary measures even against those
who are disabled. That will assure the safety and security of all of
the rest of the students. That is what the editorial in the Seattle
Post Intelligencer is about.
But the other element in this amendment has to do with an appropriate
educational atmosphere in the schools. That is even more worrisome to
the community advocating the rights of the disabled. They see that as
authorizing school boards, or teachers, or principals to expel students
who present no safety hazard to their fellow students, but can be seen
by the tremendous

[[Page S3353]]

amount of attention they require on the part of teachers severely to
distract from the educational atmosphere of a particular classroom.
Personally, I believe that that is an appropriate consideration for our
teachers and our principals and our school board members. I believe
they have a right to weigh the quality of education of all of their
students in making these judgments. I do recognize, however, that that
aspect of this amendment is more controversial--not only more
controversial, but more arguable than the balance is. And as a result
of a series of meetings during the last two-week recess at schools all
across the State of Washington, in which both the amendment I will
introduce tomorrow on block grants and IDEA, aforementioned, more of
our time was spent on this Disability Act and safety and security in
the schools than on any other subject.
At the last of those meetings when both the disability community was
represented and school authorities were represented, I detected for the
first time some willingness to meet on a middle ground. Whether that
middle ground has to do with safety and security only, how far the
disability community is willing to go in that connection, whether or
not there ought to be some consideration of the educational atmosphere
of all students, none of these questions were settled by any stretch of
the imagination in the course of the meetings that I had, even with the
education community in the State of Washington. But I do feel that it
is at least possible that on this very controversial issue a bit more
time may permit us to find some common ground. From my perspective at
least, that is the second reason that it was appropriate that I
consented to the withdrawal of the Gregg amendment at this point in the
debate.
I want to make it crystal clear, however, to educators all over the
country who have supported us in this cause, that this withdrawal does
not mean that the debate is over by any stretch of the imagination. The
present Gregg-Gorton amendment, or something very similar to it, will
be presented at an early opportunity on some other bill that relates
directly or indirectly to education. It will not go away. But I hope
the next time that it is presented, it is presented on a bill that is
almost certain to be signed by the President of the United States
rather than vetoed by the President of the United States.
In addition, I hope that by that point we may have at least a partial
meeting of the minds--one might hope a full meeting of the minds--
between those genuinely concerned with the educational rights and civil
rights of the disabled community and those genuinely concerned with the
safety and security of all of our students, and on the proposition that
all of our students receive their education in an atmosphere best
conducive to that education for all students in the public schools of
the United States.
It is with those twin hopes--that we will have a better vehicle for
this debate and that perhaps we can have the debate at a somewhat more
extended fashion than the very limited time on the Coverdell bill and
that we might bring the two sides together to a greater extent than
they have ever been in the past--that I have agreed to the withdrawal
of that amendment.
It is withdrawn from this bill. It will come up again. I believe that
we need to do more to empower those men and women all across the United
States who provide the educational services to our children day after
day, week after week, year after year because of their own professional
dedication. I believe their views need to be considered, and I think
that we will be able to consider them better a little later on this
year. I pledge, however, that consider them we will.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to
thank John Danforth, the former Senator from Missouri, for initiating
the ultimately successful effort to create greater opportunity in
public schools to have same-gender classes schools.
I was a freshman in 1994. I remember the compelling argument made by
Senator Danforth about what an opportunity this would be for a girl
like Cyndee Couch, the seventh grader at the Young Women's Leadership
school in East Harlem, NY, to have a safe haven where she could learn
without worrying about her safety, or her ability to speak out without
being made fun of, or in any way not able to be secure in feeling that
she could ask questions and participate in the classroom.
He also thought about the young girls in the classroom in Maine that
were spoken about by Senator Collins today where the school had to go
through hoop after hoop after hoop to be able to have an all-girl math
class. When they were able to finally do it and break down all the
bureaucratic barriers, the test scores have shown that this has been an
outstanding success for the girls in that class, without any detriment
whatsoever to the other students in that school.
What we want and what the Senate has done today is to help pave the
way to ensure that every child in America to has this same option. This
amendment is not a mandate. We are not saying that same-gender classes
are best for everyone. But it has been proven that they are good for
some, especially for girls and minority boys, who have demonstrated
higher test scores and higher grades when they are allowed to
concentrate on their studies, free from the distractions of a coed
environment.
I am very proud that the Senate has spoken so clearly today in favor
of this option for our public school students, an option that I might
say is available at private schools, for parents who can afford it.
Should this amendment ultimately become law, this same option will
become available for many thousands of parents and their children who
may not be able to afford private school tuition. In short, the
amendment expands the proven benefits of private, same-gender education
to the public school system.
I am very pleased the Senate has spoken so decisively today on this
issue, and I am confident Congress will include it in the final version
of this important bill. And this success would not have been possible
but for the hard work, vision, and leadership of Jack Danforth, who
took-up this cause and in whose footsteps I proudly follow. When he
left the Senate and said he would not seek reelection, I told him I
would take up the mantle on this issue, and that I would continue his
fight to ensure that our nation's schools pursue excellence wherever
they may find it. The parents and students of this nation now await the
completion of this job, and I urge my colleagues to continue to work
for expanded educational opportunities and choices for all Americans.
Thank you, Mr. President.

____________________