[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.

                          ____________________