[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3410-S3423]
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.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Missouri 
has a statement. I will be glad to follow him.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to my good friend 
and colleague from Massachusetts. I ask for 5 minutes to be yielded 
from the majority side.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished manager.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coverdell measure and in 
support of the Gorton-Frist amendment and in support of the Ashcroft 
amendment. We have an opportunity as a body to make some very clear 
statements about education that the people in our States are asking us 
to make.
  I firmly believe that education is a national priority but a local 
responsibility. This leads to a fundamental difference between this 
side and what might be referred to as a Washington establishment on 
education.
  I believe that those who know the names of the students personally 
are better at making decisions than those who don't know them. 
Unfortunately, Federal involvement in education over the years has 
started off with a great idea of providing resources in support for 
what we believe for our children is the highest priority, and that is 
getting them a good education, but it has mushroomed into burdensome 
regulations, judicial intrusion, unfunded mandates and unwanted 
meddling.
  The results have been that local school officials who are accountable 
to parents and communities have increasingly less and less control over 
what goes on in their classrooms. In some cases, parents really feel 
that they have lost control of their child's education. They have told 
me horror stories about how their children are not getting an education 
because of requirements that the Federal Government has put on the 
schools.
  I believe that parents and local school boards are and must be the 
key to true educational reform, not big Government. We should be 
empowering parents and teachers and school districts and States to 
develop challenging academic standards, programs and priorities, not 
making their jobs of educating children of America more difficult.
  As my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, said, we already 
have standards, we already have tests. As a result of those tests, we 
know where the problems are in education, and we need to do something 
about it. Yes, nationally we ought to focus on the problem, but we 
ought not to try to solve with a ``Washington, DC, solution'' the 
problems we face in every community and every city throughout Missouri 
and throughout America.
  I have had a very interesting and informative experience over the 
last year and a half talking to school board members, talking to 
teachers, talking to principals and talking to parents across my State 
of Missouri. It is from these discussions that I come back here with a 
renewed commitment to keep local control over education.
  We have school districts in Missouri hiring hordes of consultants and 
grant writers instead of teachers because they know they have to play 
``Mother May I?'' with Washington, DC. We have some schools, the 
smaller schools, that say they don't even bother to apply for the 
Federal funds because they don't have the time and the resources to 
prepare the application.
  Leaders in school districts have told me of the unforeseen 
consequences of getting a grant. They get a grant development program 
and the grant expires and the school district has to determine whether 
to take local money from existing resources to continue the program or 
to eliminate it.
  One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said very, very 
convincingly today, and I love these words, ``The Federal Government 
doesn't run schools, and the Federal Government doesn't fund schools.'' 
I

[[Page S3411]]

agree with those principles. I just wish that he were correct in the 
facts.
  The Federal Government should not be micromanaging school districts. 
In Missouri, 67 percent of the funds that go to the school districts 
come from the Federal Government. These are general funds for K through 
12. They tell me, depending upon the school district, that anywhere 
from 40 to 85 percent of the red tape and the hassle and the 
regulations come from Washington.
  I don't think that is right. Last year, when we adopted the Gorton 
amendment to send money directly to the schools, some of my colleagues 
very eloquently said, ``We don't want to have Federal dollars going 
directly to school districts because the school districts will waste 
the money; they might build athletic facilities; or they will waste it 
in some other way.''
  Mr. President, I have spent my adult career working with parents and 
teachers and school boards in Missouri. I have watched them work. I 
have watched their education decisions. I have spent about the last 11 
years in this body watching Congress debate issues and watching the 
Federal bureaucracy administer programs. And when it comes to who 
wastes money, Mr. President, it is not even close. It is not a contest. 
The Washington way wastes more money by far. The locally controlled 
schools are far better at applying those dollars to the needs of the 
children in their schools.
  There is no disagreement that in some cases a local school district 
may need money to build some more schools or it may need money to hire 
more teachers. For some schools, new textbooks should be the top 
priority. For others, additional computers might be needed or a school 
safety program might need to be implemented.
  Who knows best? Those at the local level, held accountable by those 
they serve, or the bureaucrats in Washington? A one-size-fits-all 
approach does not and will not work in education. Let us give our 
schools, our teachers, and our parents the resources and flexibility 
they need to educate our children for a lifetime of achievement and 
accomplishment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendments and to 
support the bill, and I urge that they give a sound, strong endorsement 
to local control over education.
  I reserve the remainder of the time on this side and yield the floor. 
Again, I extend my sincere thanks to my distinguished colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we all know what our priorities are in 
education. We need to do all we can to support and improve our public 
schools. That means additional assistance to every State to repair 
crumbling schools and to build new facilities. It means recruiting more 
teachers to meet the existing demand and to deal with the crisis of 
rising enrollments, especially in priority disciplines, in math and 
science. It means reducing class sizes. It means more support for 
afterschool programs to keep kids off the streets, away from drugs, and 
out of trouble. It means a major effort to teach young children how to 
read because we know that literacy is the foundation of every other 
aspect of learning. It means setting higher standards for schools to 
meet in educating their students. We know these ideas will work. But 
schools across the country are in desperate need of funds to make them 
work.
  Our goal is to improve public schools, not abandon them. It makes no 
sense to call for greater priority for education and then earmark aid 
for private schools instead of public schools. Public schools are 
instituting these ideas and getting results. We should make sure that 
every school and community has the resources to put in practice what 
works so that no child is left out or left behind.
  Mr. President, this chart here shows what is happening to the schools 
in this country. And this is according to the General Accounting 
Office: 14 million children learn in substandard schools; 7 million 
children attend schools with asbestos, lead paint, or radon in the 
ceilings or walls; 12 million children go to school under leaky roofs; 
one-third of all American children study in classrooms without enough 
panel outlets and the electrical wiring to accommodate computers and 
multimedia equipment.
  This is a tragedy, a national tragedy. It is not only a physical 
tragedy in terms of the facilities are getting more and more antiquated 
every single year, but it is also a tragedy in the kind of subliminal 
message--and it isn't so subliminal a message--that it sends to 
children and their parents. Because as grownups and as political 
leaders are talking about the importance of children in our country and 
in our society, and that the children are our future, on the other 
hand, we are sending our children into these kinds of conditions every 
single day. We are sending the message that we do not really care about 
the kind of facilities where you are trying to learn, and we do not 
really care very much about education. That is the message that is 
being hammered home every single day to these millions of children who 
are going to school in these kinds of conditions. That is wrong. We are 
trying to address that. And that is a principal policy difference 
between the Republicans and the Democrats on the education issue.
  Massachusetts is no exception. Forty-one percent of Massachusetts 
schools report that at least one building needs extensive repairs or 
should be replaced. Seventy-five percent report serious problems in 
buildings, such as plumbing or heating defects. Eighty percent have at 
least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. It is difficult enough 
to teach or learn in modern classrooms, and it makes no sense to 
compound the difficulty by subjecting teachers and students to 
dilapidated facilities. We cannot tolerate a situation in which 
facilities deteriorate while enrollments escalate.
  Mr. President, in far too many communities across the country, 
children are also learning in overcrowded classrooms. This year, K-12 
enrollment reached an all-time high, and will continue to rise over the 
next 7 years, and will increase by about 4 million children in K-12 
over the period of the next 4 years.

  That is why it is so important that we are going to have a major 
effort in terms of increasing the teaching profession and giving them 
the skills to be able to teach these children to ever higher standards 
and to take into consideration the utilizations of the new electronics 
and to tie those into curriculum, all of that so that our children are 
going to have a world-class education. That is a new phenomenon. That 
is a national phenomenon--the expansion and growth of our children in 
our schools. We know this is happening.
  And now we need 6,000 new public schools built and needed by the year 
2006 just to maintain the current class sizes. We know this is 
happening. We have been given that information by the Department of 
Education and by everyone that has studied this situation.
  Due to the overcrowded schools, they are using trailers for 
classrooms and teaching students in former hallways, closets, and 
bathrooms. And overcrowded classrooms undermine the discipline and 
decrease student morale.
  We have had the testimony during the earlier debates--I have given 
examples of these kinds of conditions--and for the first time heard 
from an outstanding president of a very important school in neighboring 
Virginia the fact that because of these overcrowded conditions, a new 
phenomenon is developing in their school, and it is called hall rage--
hall rage. I never heard those words used before.
  What he was pointing out was, with the increasing number of students 
in these confined areas, that from the brushing against one another and 
the kinds of violence that is taking place in the classroom, you see 
the explosion in the number of fights, misunderstandings, and a 
deterioration in both morale and discipline because of hall rage--too 
many students trying to get to too many different places, and often in 
these trailers for classrooms and in closets and other situations. That 
is what is happening in the United States of America. That is what is 
happening.
  We ought to give a helping hand to the local communities. We are not 
interested in superimposing some Federal solution, some ``new 
bureaucracy,'' those old cliches. I have listened to the same cliches 
for 30-odd years. You would think they would have new ones, talking 
about the ``new bureaucracy,'' ``one size fits all,'' ``Washington

[[Page S3412]]

doesn't know everything.'' You hear those every single day for 30 
years, and you would think they would find some new ones.
  What we are finding out with overcrowded classrooms is, we have the 
demand for additional teachers and we have the demand for additional 
kinds of support for students as well in other areas.
  Mr. President, class sizes are too large. Students in small classes 
in the early grades make much more rapid progress than students in 
larger classes. In the exchange earlier today, I pointed out what some 
of the States are doing, and the findings in Wisconsin, the findings in 
California, Flint, MI, very important findings in terms of increasing 
literacy and academic achievement with these smaller classes. It is not 
the answer to everything, but it is a pretty clear and compelling case 
to be made. And it was made so clearly by the Senator from Washington, 
Senator Murray, on the importance of getting into smaller classes. As a 
former teacher and school board member, she is talking about what is 
happening out on Main Street. This is a message that should have been 
listened to. And we will have an opportunity to vote on her excellent 
amendment in just a little while.
  The benefits are greatest for low-achieving minority and low-income 
children with smaller classes. Smaller classes also enable teachers to 
identify and work effectively with students who have learning 
disabilities and reduce the need for special education at later grades.
  The Nation's students deserve modern schools with world-class 
teachers. But too many students in too many schools in too many 
communities across the country fail to achieve that standard.
  The latest international survey on math and science achievement 
confirms the urgent need to raise standards of performance for schools, 
teachers, and students alike. It is shameful that America's 12th 
graders ranked among the lowest of 22 nations participating in the 
international survey on math and science. Here we have prospectively, 
in the year 2000, on a voluntary basis, on the States and local 
community tests, so that we can raise the standards of American 
children in areas of math and science--we have an amendment to strike 
that, strike that proposal--tests that will be developed in a 
bipartisan way so parents have greater information to make decisions 
locally to enhance academic achievement and accomplishment, a 
compromise that was agreed to by 87 Members of this body, a bipartisan 
compromise, and now we have an amendment to strike that at a time when 
we are having these results and effectively denying the parents the 
opportunity to have knowledge and understanding about where their 
children are, in their school, in their community, in their State, 
relevant to other communities across the country, if they want to, if 
they believe that is important. I think that makes no sense whatever, 
and I hope the Ashcroft amendment will be defeated.
  Teacher shortages forced many school districts to hire uncertified 
teachers or to ask certified teachers to teach outside their area of 
expertise. That is what is happening in every area of the country. Each 
year, over 50,000 underprepared teachers enter the classroom. One in 
four does not fully meet State certification requirements. Twelve 
percent of new teachers have no training teacher at all. Students in 
inner city schools have only a 50 percent chance of being taught by a 
qualified science or math teacher. Listen to that: only a 50 percent 
chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher.
  Instead of putting the $1.6 billion in tax advantage for individuals 
who will send their kids to private schools, let's do something about 
those schoolteachers who are not certified in the areas of math and 
science, and upgrade their skills. They will go back to the public 
schools and be able to enhance the quality of education for those kids. 
This is a basic difference between our Republican friends and those on 
this side on the issue of teachers and the importance of having high 
standards on which to measure our children.
  Another high priority is to meet the need for more afterschool 
activities. Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years 
old, are home alone after school. Juvenile delinquent crime peaks 
between the hours of 3 and 8. Children left unsupervised are more 
likely to be involved in antisocial activities and destructive patterns 
of behavior. It isn't just that there are greater opportunities for 
them to get in trouble, it is that there are advantages of having those 
children in circumstances where they are able to go into local 
community-based systems where they may get some help and assistance 
with their homework over the afternoon or maybe participate in some 
sports events that are supervised, so when the parents get home after a 
long, hard day, the children can have some quality time instead of 
having parents too often come home, know the kids have been watching 
television, or not knowing where their kids are, and sending them to 
their room to do the homework, and the parent lacks that opportunity to 
spend quality time. No one denies if the parents want to work with the 
child, well and good, but for the parents hard-pressed and working from 
early morning to late in the evening, and who have the responsibility 
in terms of the family that value the afternoon kind of program, they 
ought to be at least available.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Reserving the right to object, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired on the minority side; the 
majority side has 16 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator would be using our side's time. I want to 
afford the Senator an opportunity to complete his remarks. May I yield 
another 2\1/2\ minutes of my time to the Senator?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, we had set for 3 o'clock--as the Senator knows, I 
have been trying to get people over here. I will yield as soon as 
anybody comes over. I have about 5 more minutes. I would like to be 
able to continue for 5 more minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It was my intention to try to respond to the time that 
the Senator is using. I am trying to split the difference.
  I yield 3 minutes of my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have how much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the Democratic side.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, literacy is another very high priority, 
to date. Too many children are reading at unacceptable levels--40 
percent of the fourth graders fail to attain the basic level of 
reading.

  Incredibly, Mr. President, the tax proposal that is the Coverdell 
proposal ignores each and every one of these pressing needs. The 
regressive Republican tax bill does nothing to improve public schools, 
nothing to address the need for public schools to build new facilities, 
nothing to reduce class size in school, nothing to provide qualified 
teachers, nothing to provide afterschool activities to keep children 
away from drugs, nothing to help all children learn to read, and 
nothing to help reach higher academic standards. It does nothing to 
improve the quality of education for children in public schools. Tax 
breaks for private schools is not the answer to the serious problems 
facing the Nation's public schools.
  There are serious problems in the Nation's public schools. We can do 
much more to turn troubled schools around and undertake a wide-range of 
proven reforms to create and sustain safe and high-performing schools. 
There are no magic remedies to improve schools and improve student 
learning. We need to use our limited resources wisely to get the most 
benefits for our tax dollars.
  The Republican approach would divert urgently needed funds away from 
public schools into private schools. That is wrong for education, wrong 
for America, and wrong for the Nation's future.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has 
characterized the differences here today as Republican and Democrat, 
and they are not. The dispute we are having here today is between a 
community that is defending the status quo and rejecting change and a 
group of Senators who

[[Page S3413]]

are committed to reform and change. And they are not Republicans and 
Democrats, as the Senator from Massachusetts has suggested.
  The measure that is before the Senate is cosponsored by Senator 
Torricelli from New Jersey, a Democrat. The school construction 
proposal that is before the Senate was authored by Senator Graham of 
Florida, a Democrat. The assistance to these States to students that 
have prepaid State tuition assistance is authored by Senator Moynihan 
of New York, a Democrat. And aiding employees by facilitating an 
employers' ability to help continuing education is the suggestion of 
Senator Breaux from Louisiana, a Democrat. So this is a bipartisan 
proposal that is here. It is not a Republican proposal. There are many 
Democrats who are at the forefront of what is being discussed and 
debated here today.
  The Senator from Massachusetts also characterizes this as an 
education savings account as if there were nothing else in the 
proposal. As I have just said, yes, there is an education savings 
account in our proposal that is directed to helping parents, parents 
who have children in public schools, in private schools, and at-home 
schools. But there are also provisions in the proposal that aid the 21 
States in the Union that have prepaid tuition plans.
  This proposal that is before the Senate, and I predict will pass the 
Senate, makes sure that when those funds come to the students, when 
they actually need them to go to college, those funds are not going to 
get taxed at that time. The full benefit of those State-prepaid tuition 
programs will be there for 1 million college students.
  There are already 1 million students in the queue in 21 States, and 
17 more States are about to adopt such provisions. The plan before the 
Senate will aid employers in funding continuing education for 1 million 
employees in America--1 million. What it does is it enables them to 
spend up to $5,250 annually to help with the continuing education 
program. And that is not going to be treated as income to the employee, 
is not going to be taxed, a disincentive to offering the program.
  The plan deals with school construction, but it leaves the decision 
about what should be constructed to local communities. Senator Graham's 
proposal expands financing tools for local communities and high-growth 
communities to deal with school construction.
  So the proposal before the Senate is wide-ranging, from education 
savings accounts that help parents and students--14 million of them to 
be exact, and 20 million students to be exact --who will save in the 
first 5 years upwards of $5 billion, and over 10 years $10 billion. The 
suggestion is that all these resources go to private schools. It is 
simply not true. Seventy percent of the families that use these savings 
accounts, their children are in public schools. Public schools are a 
big winner. The division of where the money goes is about 50/50 because 
folks who have children in private schools save more. They know they 
have to have more. But it's their money; it's not public money.
  So all of these issues that the Senator has alluded to are embraced--
maybe not exactly the way he would like them--in the proposal before 
the Senate: education savings accounts for parents, tax incentives for 
employers to help employees, the protection of prepaid State tuition 
plans, and school construction.
  Now, on top of that, we are going to have a chance to vote on an 
amendment offered on this bill by Senator Gorton. Senator Gorton takes 
a portion of the Federal assistance and removes all the regulations, 
like it has to happen on a ``blue'' day and a ``green'' Tuesday, or 
whatever. All the morass that the Senator from Tennessee, now in the 
Chair, talked about earlier today--strip those away from about $10 
billion-plus that goes to the local States and they can do exactly what 
the Senator from Massachusetts wants to see done. They can build 
schools, they can hire teachers, they can reduce class size, they can 
develop after-school programs, they can build parks, they can do 
whatever they think, and that is $10 billion on top of which we have 
created a new pool of $10 billion.
  The other side wants to look away from that voluntary money in those 
savings accounts. This is money being brought forward by parents and 
friends of parents of children. There is no new tax that has to be 
raised. No school district has to raise their taxes to get the $10 
billion. No State has to increase income taxes. The Federal Government 
doesn't have to spend more money. By this simple, small incentive, we 
are causing American families to come forward with billions of new 
dollars to help public, private, and home schools. They will hire 
tutors. I think they are smarter dollars than a lot of dollars we talk 
about here. Why? Because they are guided by the family to the specific 
problem the child has. If a child has a math deficiency in a public 
school, private, or home school, then the family can hire a tutor with 
that savings account they generate. If they don't have a home 
computer--and I might point out that only 15 percent of the students in 
inner city schools have home computers--well, they could buy one with 
these savings accounts. If they have a learning disability--dyslexia or 
something like that--then the family has a tool they can use to fix 
that specific problem. Public dollars have a hard time doing that.

  The Senator from Massachusetts, on several occasions, has referred to 
this tax incentive that will go to create these savings accounts. It is 
true that about $500 million is used as the tax incentive--just over 
$500 million. That is a newer figure. The figure the Senator used is a 
little larger than that, but that was the figure I had at the same 
time. It is about $520 million in the first 5 years of tax relief to 
anybody that would open the account, by not taxing the interest 
buildup. That modest incentive, that modest amount of tax relief is 
what generates $5 billion in savings.
  The proposal that the Senator was talking about in terms of school 
construction is a $9 billion tax relief proposal. Who does that go to? 
That goes to banks and insurance companies and Wall Street brokers. 
They will get the tax breaks on the school bonds under the proposal to 
build schools. On the one hand, we have $500 million of tax relief over 
5 years to generate $5 billion of new savings. On the other hand, we 
have $9 billion of tax relief going to the holders of the bonds on the 
school proposal.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield a minute on that issue?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I don't know which particular amendment the Senator is 
talking on. On the school construction amendment by Senator Moseley-
Braun, there is $3.3 billion to create $22 billion in school 
construction. I don't know which one the Senator is referring to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I am using the 10-year figure. The figure you used is 
correct for the first 5 years.
  Mr. KENNEDY. You are using a 10-year figure for her and a 5-year 
figure for yourself.
  Mr. COVERDELL. My 10-year figure would be about $1.1 billion. Let's 
take the 5 years. In 5 years, it is $500 million in tax relief for 14 
million middle-income families on the education savings account and 
over 5 years, over $3 billion of tax relief for the people that buy 
those big bonds. That is a very select community that can play that 
game. Then in 10 years mine becomes $1.1 billion for the 14 million 
families, and they save because of that, $10 billion. No one saves a 
dime on the savings proposed for the school bonds. That doesn't 
generate anything, except school construction. But the beneficiaries of 
the tax relief are a very select group of Americans. They fit in a very 
small percentage group.
  The point I am making--that amendment obviated tax relief for the 
middle-class Americans, the 14 million families; it took it out and 
replaced it with $9 billion in tax relief for, as I said, large 
financial institutions.
  I know my time is about to expire. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 55 seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I want to make the point that all the subjects--school 
construction, smaller class size, reinforcing communities and parents--
we are talking about the same subjects. We may differ on our approach, 
and this doesn't cut down party lines; this cuts down status quo or 
reform, doing things differently, with more authority at the local 
level, more decisionmaking at the local level, more decisionmaking for 
families. That is where the cut is. It

[[Page S3414]]

is not Democrat or Republican. My chief cosponsor is a prominent member 
of the Democratic side of the aisle.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I want to reiterate that what we are talking about 
helps 14 million families who are the carekeepers of over 20 million 
schoolchildren. And every school environment is helped--public, 
private, and home. Our proposal will aid 1 million college students, 
250,000 graduate students, 1 million employees, 500 new schools, $10 
million in new savings. The Federal Government doesn't have this. This 
is coming from families, $10 million, a huge influx of new resources.
  If the Gorton amendment passes, there will be over 10 additional 
billions--not new expenditures, just freed up expenditures--for smaller 
classrooms, for new schools, or for whatever those States and local 
communities feel are necessary to get at the crisis and challenge that 
we all know and have both cited time and time again are occurring, 
particularly in kindergarten through high school.
  Mr. President, I believe the hour of 3 o'clock has arrived. It is my 
understanding that Senator Landrieu is scheduled to begin her amendment 
at this hour.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, she was going to make a best 
effort. She was over here at 1 o'clock and was over here this morning. 
So we will inquire and try to determine her location, and then I will 
report back to the Senator.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Very good.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2301

(Purpose: To strike section 101, and to provide funding for Blue Ribbon 
                                Schools)

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2301.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 101, and insert the following:

     SEC. 101. BLUE RIBBON SCHOOLS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--
       (1) Recognition.--The Secretary of Education is authorized 
     to carry out a program that recognizes public and private 
     elementary and secondary schools that have established 
     standards of excellence and demonstrated a high level of 
     quality.
       (2) Designation.--Each school recognized under paragraph 
     (1) shall be designated as a ``Blue Ribbon School'' for a 
     period of 3 years.
       (b) Awards.--
       (1) Amount.--The Secretary shall make an award for each 
     school recognized under subsection (a) in the amount of 
     $100,000.
       (2) Special rule.--If the Secretary is prohibited from 
     making an award directly to a school, the Secretary shall 
     make such award to the local educational agency serving such 
     school for the exclusive use of such school.
       (3) Private schools.--Awards for private schools recognized 
     under subsection (a) shall be used to provide students and 
     teachers at the schools with educational services and 
     benefits that are similar to, and provided in the same manner 
     as, the services and benefits provided to private school 
     students and teachers under part A of title I, or title VI, 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (4) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not make more than 250 
     awards under this section for any fiscal year.
       (5) Wait-out period.--The Secretary shall not make a second 
     or subsequent award to a school under this section before the 
     expiration of the 3-year designation period under subsection 
     (a)(2) that is applicable to the preceding award.
       (c) Applications and Technical Assistance Grants.--
       (1) Applications.--Each school desiring recognition under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       (2) Technical assistance grants.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to award grants to States to enable the States to 
     provide technical assistance to schools desiring recognition 
     under subsection (a)(1).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section (other than subsection (c)(2)) 
     $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (2) Technical assistance grants.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (c)(2) $2,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I send this amendment to the desk to 
offer an alternative to my distinguished colleague from Georgia, an 
alternative in the way we would spend this $1.6 billion that we have 
been debating and have been debating for some time now.
  Let me thank my colleague from Georgia for at least getting the 
Senate to begin a significant debate about the ways in which we can 
improve the status of education in our Nation. I, frankly, am one 
Senator who believes that there is nothing really more important that 
we can spend our time on now than talking about this important issue. I 
think the debate has been very lively. It has come with controversy. 
But I thank my colleague from Georgia for at least offering this idea, 
so that we can have a debate about the best way to spend our money when 
it comes to trying to improve our schools, which, in my opinion, is the 
number one priority of all Americans, regardless of whether they have 
children in school or not. We all know as a nation the value of our 
education system, both public as well as private.
  I was very open to this idea initially as it was presented. I have, I 
think, demonstrated in the year I have been here an ability to be open 
to new ideas about how to solve this problem. I don't think the old 
ways work. I don't believe the American public wants us to just throw 
more money at a problem. I think they are looking at innovation and 
creativity in improving our schools. I think the American people, 
particularly people in Louisiana, have witnessed many schools that are 
working, many pilot programs and initiatives, whether it is charter 
schools and more accountability, teacher training, teacher testing, or 
higher student achievement and things that are working.
  So I looked, with hope perhaps, at this bill, now called the 
Coverdell-Torricelli proposal, but after looking at the studies that 
have come in about who would really benefit from this initiative to 
spend $1.5 billion, it is clear to me from the GAO report and other 
economists reporting that the major benefit of this $1.5 billion to be 
spent over 5 years would go to a very small segment of parents and 
families who have their children in private or nonpublic schools.
  I want to be part of a team of Senators and leaders who support 
efforts that help all schools as fairly as they can. There are some in 
this body and in Congress who do not want to do very much at all to 
help parochial or private schools. I am not in that group. I believe 
our Government within the framework of our Constitution should try to 
help all of our schools and all of our students. But this is not the 
best way we can go about this, and that is why I am not going to be 
able to support the bill and would offer this amendment as a 
substitute, if you will.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will yield 
one moment so we can clarify an administrative detail.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It won't take a minute.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 3:45 
today the Senate proceed to a series of votes on or in relation to the 
following amendments: Gorton No. 2293, Hutchinson No. 2296, Murray No. 
2295, Ashcroft No. 2300, Levin No. 2299. I further ask unanimous 
consent that if amendment No. 2300 is agreed to, the Levin amendment 
No. 2299 be open to further amendment under the same time limitations 
under the original order. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 
2 minutes of debate equally divided between each of the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.

[[Page S3415]]

  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, if I can continue, my amendment is called the blue 
ribbon schools amendment. It is quite simple. It would take the money 
we would otherwise be setting aside for these very small savings 
accounts that would reach only a small group of beneficiaries and 
spread it over all 50 States, to many schools in those States that have 
been designated basically by their peers to be blue ribbon schools and 
schools of excellence. It is time that we in this country stop at the 
Federal level--and I hope we can encourage States and local governments 
to stop--funding failure and start rewarding results and success.
  That is what this amendment does. This amendment will take the money 
otherwise spent by the distinguished Senator from Georgia and give 
$100,000 grants to all of the schools designated, and there are 250 so 
designated each year, as the most excellent schools in America. They 
are public; they are parochial; they are private. There have been 3,000 
schools that have achieved this designation since this program started 
10 years ago.
  It is currently operating this way. The schools are rigorously 
evaluated and 250 are chosen. They are invited to come to Washington. 
They are given a plaque and a pat on the back and they are basically 
sent home. I think we need to do more than give them a pat on the back 
and a plaque to hang on their school wall, as proud as they are to 
display this plaque, and begin to reward success and say, 
congratulations, a job well done and here is $100,000 to help you 
continue that good job.

  Many of these schools are succeeding despite the odds because they 
have bitten the bullet; they have made tough choices; they are making 
good decisions at the local level. I think the most important thing we 
in the Federal Government can do is to begin acknowledging success and 
rewarding success.
  That is what this amendment does. It also provides a small amount of 
money to help the States administer this very cost-effective program 
because it is a locally based initiative. It is a panel of their peers 
who makes these choices. It would be a great way to spend this $1 
billion to reward these schools.
  Madam President, that is simply what this amendment does. It is a 
blue ribbon school amendment. I think it will go a long way to 
encouraging schools that are beating the odds to continue to do so, and 
we will reward them with something significant. So they can take that 
$100,000 and apply it to technology, teacher training, and other 
opportunities for students. And this is available, I want to stress, 
for parochial and private schools, as well as public, within the 
constitutional framework so that we are better reaching across all of 
the Nation to many of the schools and doing it in a fair way. That is 
what my amendment does, and I offer it as a substitute.
  In closing, let me say this is only 1 of 10 or 15 ways on which I 
personally think it is better to spend this $1.5 billion, that will 
have a longer and a greater impact on improving education than 
establishing these savings accounts.
  I did not get to speak on Senator Glenn's amendment, but I will just 
say another way to spend this $1 billion would be to expand the IRA 
from $500 to $2,000, which he so eloquently talked about yesterday. It 
would be another good way to have a positive effect in encouraging 
people to save early for their children's college education, which is 
so expensive.
  So with all due respect to my colleague from Georgia for all of the 
good remarks he has made, there are just better ways to spend the 
money. This blue ribbon school amendment is only one, but I commend it 
and recommend it to this body to consider.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I will.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We have now an opportunity to make a choice as we are 
going to vote on this measure, the Coverdell bill, which has been 
estimated to be $1.6 billion over the period of the next 10 years. We 
will have a choice either this evening or tomorrow as to how we are 
going to expend those funds, whether they will be used primarily, as 
the Tax Committee says, for private schools or, as I understand the 
Senator's amendment, to recognize excellence in schools all across this 
country as a result of local decisions that are being made by parents, 
local community decisions, and to give a financial reward. $100,000 is 
a considerable reward, but I imagine, since these schools are 
dedicating themselves to improving and strengthening their academic 
achievements and accomplishments, those resources are going to be used 
to further student advancement, thereby giving some real meaning to the 
local initiatives to put excellence first in terms of public education.
  So on the one hand we are going to have a choice for recognizing 
excellence at the local level selected by peer review or the funds will 
be primarily used in terms of private education. Do I understand it 
correctly?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, the Senator from Massachusetts understands this 
correctly and has articulated it very accurately. The reason that I am 
unable to support Senator Coverdell's proposal is because it is clear 
from the studies that the vast majority of the benefit would go to just 
a small portion of those in parochial or private schools.
  I believe that we need to be more balanced in our approach to help 
all of our schools and all of our families, as balanced as we can be, 
and not try to put one above the other.
  So, this amendment gives funding to parochial schools, to private 
schools, and to public schools, based on their efforts to be excellent. 
And, as the Senator knows, sometimes against great odds, in very poor 
districts, these schools--many parochial schools--are doing a great 
job. I believe they should be rewarded within the framework of the 
Constitution, which is clearly appropriate with this program.
  So it is my hope that the Senate and the Congress will strongly 
consider this approach, because this is exactly what we need to be 
doing, rewarding and encouraging success.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield further, I imagine, then, 
after they are selected, hopefully these will be models within the 
local community? People will say, ``These schools have been selected 
because of their enhanced academic achievement and excellence. I wonder 
what they did right.'' Parents in neighboring communities will 
understand it, others will understand it, and hopefully, as a result of 
these kinds of awards, it will be an incentive for replicating the 
kinds of decisions at the local level that have resulted in excellence. 
Is that the objective as well?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is the objective. If I could read into the Record 
the way the schools are chosen now, it is if they are student focused 
and have great student support, if their standards are challenging and 
their curricula challenging, if they are teaching active learning, if 
they have developed partnerships with their communities, and if they 
have strong leadership. Those are just some of the measures that are 
used.
  So, yes, the Senator is correct. As they receive their blue ribbons 
and their plaques, they are being honored now in our Nation and they 
are held up to high esteem. The problem is, they basically leave here 
emptyhanded, because we send them back with a plaque and a ribbon. I 
think we need send them home with some money and some real help, to put 
our money where our mouth is and say, ``Good job; here's some money to 
help you continue to do that good job. You make us proud. You have done 
it against the odds.''
  We want to be a more reliable partner. That is what I think the 
greatness is with this amendment. There are other approaches we could 
use, but this is, I think, getting us on the right track.
  I thank the Senator, and I yield back whatever time I have remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator withhold the time, perhaps, just in 
case we need respond?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. I reserve the time in the event we need to 
respond, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
proposed by the Senator from Louisiana. Both she and I agree on many 
different issues. I will come to why I oppose the amendment itself. But 
let me say that I do agree with her in her statement that it is 
important to reward excellence, and to reward it appropriately,

[[Page S3416]]

in terms of our Nation's schools. It is especially important when, 
clearly, what we are doing today is not accomplishing it in the 
aggregate. We do need to identify particular schools, reward them, 
change what they are doing, so we will improve the overall standards of 
all schools.
  In Tennessee, there have been many schools that have received and 
earned the Blue Ribbon Schools Excellence in Education awards. I am 
proud of them, to go by and see them. They are given a Presidential 
Citation, a flag of excellence signifying that school's exemplary 
status.
  I understand the Senator from Louisiana wants to expand on this 
notion of honoring success, but to do so by having the schools receive 
national financial rewards of $100,000.
  We agree on many points, in terms of encouraging success, but we 
differ on one key element. The one key element, all of our colleagues 
must be aware of, because it is key in this amendment, and that is that 
this amendment has been offered as a result of the Senator's opposition 
to the Coverdell Savings Account A+ Act. As a result of this 
opposition, the proposed amendment would strike section 101 of the 
Coverdell bill. In effect, it is a poison pill to the Coverdell savings 
account initiative.
  As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Task Force on Education, I 
have had the opportunity over the last 6 months to conduct hearings and 
to hear from people who are at schools, who run schools in the local 
communities. I have heard again and again how important it is--
repeatedly--that we must look for creative solutions, for innovation, 
to the problems that plague our Nation's schools. Senator Coverdell's 
plans for savings accounts is a good, positive first step. The proposed 
amendment would gut that totally. I do not believe it is the final 
solution, but the proposal does take us in that very important 
direction of empowering that parent-child team.
  I would like to just take a moment to highlight the provisions of the 
Coverdell bill which I believe make it an effective tool, a positive 
tool, in helping students and families across the country which, if 
this amendment were to pass, the Coverdell advantages would go away. 
What does the Coverdell A+ Accounts do? We expand the education savings 
accounts in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 by increasing the annual 
contribution limit for education IRAs from $500 to $2,000. The bill, 
very importantly, expands the definition of what is qualified education 
expenses. They are currently limited to higher education. The Coverdell 
bill expands it to K-12--K-12 expenses, the sort of expenses we have 
already talked about.
  It could be anything from equipment to computers to books to 
supplies, or if you are an individual with a disability, to give you 
the tools that you might not otherwise have so you can learn, 
homeschooling expenses, uniforms, transportation costs--all of these 
would be encompassed by the Coverdell bill. If the amendment by the 
Senator from Louisiana is agreed to instead of the Coverdell bill, they 
will all go away. We all know that it is the parents, the parents who 
want the very best for their children. I believe it is important--which 
the Coverdell bill does--to encourage parents to invest in their 
children's education, to give them that opportunity, to lower the 
barriers to do so, to give them the incentives to invest in their 
children.
  The President signed into law on August 5, 1997, the Taxpayer Relief 
Act, which authorized new education IRAs. But that was just for higher 
education, not K-12. I am fully supportive of every measure we can put 
on the table helping families plan for higher education expenses. I 
also believe this effort should be expanded to provide tax allowances 
for what families spend on elementary and secondary education. That is 
not allowed today but will be allowed under the Coverdell proposal.
  While our colleges and universities are the very best in the world--
and this was put before our task force committee again and again--the 
foundation on which those colleges and universities rest is not sturdy; 
it is weak. In fact, our elementary and secondary schools are not the 
envy of the world, unlike our colleges and universities.
  In a recent TIMMS, the third, math and science study, scores show 
just how poorly our student are measuring up to their international 
counterparts. I referred to this earlier. This is the 12th grade 
mathematics general knowledge achievement compared to 21 other 
countries. You don't need to read the chart, but these are countries 
that do better than us, such countries as Austria, Slovenia does better 
than us, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland. Only 2 nations--these are the 
nations we do equal to--only 2 nations out of 21 do worse than the 
United States in the 12th grade mathematics. The same can be said of 
science. So we are not doing, in K-12, anywhere near what we should be 
doing.
  Even our colleges and universities have to take on that additional 
burden by reteaching students that they receive. Approximately 30 
percent of freshmen in college today require remedial course work. We 
need to direct our attention to this K-12 foundation, which the 
Coverdell bill does.
  Under current law, we assist parents, students, and families with 
numerous tax allowances for higher education. We have HOPE and Lifetime 
Learning Savings. We have the education IRAs for higher education. We 
have the State prepaid tuition programs. We have U.S. savings bonds. In 
terms of loans for students, we provide deductions for interest 
payments--all for higher education. We are the best in the world. Now 
is the time to look at K-12 education.
  I would like to talk just very briefly about why I think a new 
approach is needed. By agreeing to the amendment that is proposed by 
the Senator from Louisiana, again, we are gutting the Coverdell bill. 
In essence, we are saying let's not change the system at all, that we 
are doing OK. That is in essence what this amendment is doing. Are we 
doing OK? This chart basically shows, in science, trends in average 
science scale scores over the last 20 years, going from 1970 on your 
left to 1996 on the right. This is age 17, the purple line. The green 
line is age 13. The orange line is age 7. And the whole point is that, 
over the last 20 years, we are not improving at all.
  I just compared globally; we are doing worse. Out of 21 nations, in 
the 12th grade, only 2 nations did worse than us. So, in spite of all 
500 programs that we have today, in spite of spending about $74 billion 
at the Federal level, we are doing no better.
  Beneath the surface of this whole disappointment of stagnant student 
performance and despite a commitment of increased resources--and let me 
show very briefly on this chart what we have been doing as a nation.
  This is 1971 to 1997, about a 27-year period. This is how much we 
spend per pupil in adjusted dollars today. That is what the red line 
is, constant 1996-1997 dollars. What it shows is that in 1970 we were 
spending, in today's dollars, about $4,000. Today, we are spending 
about 50 percent more, about $6,000. We have had a stagnant performance 
at the same time we have had increased expenditures.
  A vote for the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana says, let's 
not change the system, let's keep doing exactly what we are doing 
today--something with which I heartily disagree.
  Beneath the surface of this whole disappointment that we see in terms 
of stagnant student performance, there is an acute crisis in our urban 
schools. One out of every four public school students are enrolled in 
an urban school district.
  A recent report examining our urban schools noted:

       It is hard to exaggerate the education crisis in America's 
     cities. Words like scandal, failure, corruption and despair 
     echo in the pages of the Nation's newspapers.

  Another area of concern is the Federal component in the landscape of 
American education. I show this chart again not so much to show the 
details, but this is a chart that was generated by the General 
Accounting Office. As the task force chairman, I basically found it can 
be depicted by a chart like this, that we have today at the Federal 
level a sprawling and unfocused effort which suffers from a 
programmatic reluctance to ask itself what works and what doesn't work.
  Over the last couple of days, we have said that we have heard again 
and again maybe one more program will help out. This basically shows, 
among three target groups--this happens to be teachers, and the various 
departments and various Federal programs are around the border--how 
they influence

[[Page S3417]]

teachers. Just walk away from it, and you see that this is a spider web 
almost of unrelated programs all targeted at the individuals. There are 
over 500 such programs right now.
  What we need to do, if anything, is to consolidate and to improve. We 
do need to change. We do need to allow that creativity, to allow that 
innovation. A vote for the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana guts 
the Coverdell bill. It says, let's not change, let's not structurally 
improve the system.
  In the last few minutes, I talked about the disparity between the 
assistance we provide for higher education and elementary and secondary 
education. I have shown the data which show our children are not at the 
level we need for them to be if we are to remain competitive in the 
global marketplace.
  I talked a little bit about the need for creative solutions in our K-
12 system, the sort of solutions that are offered in the Coverdell 
bill. I mentioned provisions in the bill of the Senator from Georgia 
which will enable the parent-child team--and that is what we need to 
stay focused on--to make important education decisions in the early 
years.
  Coming back to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana, awarding 
schools is on the right track. It is a good approach. We need to 
recognize success. I might add, we need to replicate that success as 
well. I will say, as an alternative to the Coverdell bill, it is 
totally unacceptable. Savings accounts are too important for families 
in Tennessee and all across this Nation. We simply cannot afford to 
desert this effort, despite the merits of these other proposals. 
Savings accounts, bonds for school construction, State prepaid tuition, 
the underlying Coverdell bill provides all of this. To replace that 
bill with a program that does recognize merit but does nothing more is 
simply unsatisfactory.

  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment of the Senator from 
Louisiana and support the underlying bill. I reserve the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Just for clarification, how much time remains on both 
sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 1 minute 50 
seconds; the opposing side has 2 minutes 33 seconds remaining.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I will use the remainder of my time to 
thank my distinguished colleague from Tennessee for agreeing that this 
amendment is, in fact, on the right track and for saying that it is 
about time we begin rewarding success and innovation, it is about time 
we become a reliable partner with our local schools that are achieving, 
despite sometimes great difficulty, and to begin rewarding them. I 
thank him for his comments.
  I do not disagree with him as he laid out all of the problems 
associated currently with our public and general education system in 
the United States. No one in this Chamber disagrees with the sad 
statistics about lack of achievement, lack of discipline, et cetera, 
although I want to say for the Record that there are many, many, many 
good public schools, private and parochial schools in this Nation, of 
which we should be proud. The fact is that we need to have every one to 
be excellent, but we are falling from the mark.
  Let me, if I can, Madam President, in the 1 minute I have left, call 
to your attention one of the real failings of the Coverdell proposal.
  In order to save money, obviously, you have to save it for a long 
period of time for it to generate any benefit to the saver. One of the 
problems with setting aside $500 to begin using in kindergarten is that 
you don't have the money set aside long enough for there to be a 
benefit to a family. So what we are saying is a $30 benefit is not 
really that great a benefit. There are so many better ways we can spend 
this money to really improve education.
  If we want to have a savings plan, which I would support, and prepaid 
college tuition, which is certainly one I support, then let's do some 
real saving in this country. Let's really save $500 or $2,000, which is 
part of the Coverdell proposal that I do agree with. Let's set aside 
money, increase it--which is what Senator Glenn tried to do--from $500 
to $2,000 a year to enable families, from when their child is 1, if 
they save until 17 at a 6 percent yield, to save $60,000. If they 
received a 12 percent return, they could save over $110,000 
approximately. Then you are talking about real money, and you are 
talking about real benefit, and you are talking about real savings, and 
you are talking about a Tax Code that really might work and do 
something good. If we had adopted John Glenn's amendment, this is what 
people in America would be doing, and I would be proud to sign my name 
to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I offer this for the Record and thank 
you for letting me offer the blue ribbon school amendment and the long-
term savings amendment.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I want to make it very clear that the 
education savings accounts would inure to the benefit of 14 million 
American families. The initial amount of money saved would be $5 
billion.
  The example that the Senator from Louisiana offers doesn't really 
paint the picture. The $30 she talks about is, of course, averaging 
everybody out, and that is the interest only. She has forgotten that it 
is the interest on a lot of principal.
  We have said from the outset, one of the surprises about this 
education savings account is the tax relief involved over 5 years is 
only a little over $500 million. But that little amount makes Americans 
do big things. Because of that simple, small incentive, they go out and 
save $5 billion to put behind education.
  This blue-ribbon proposal would end up helping maybe 400 schools in 
America. They would be schools that have been generally better off. 
What we are talking about is helping 14 million families deal with the 
situation in all the schools that 20 million children attend. That 
might be a school that would in no way be able to compete for one of 
these excellence awards. Very few of your inner city schools could meet 
these standards.

  So what do you want, 400 schools that get $300,000 a year for the 
building, or 14 million families and 20 million kids having an ability 
to buy a home computer or a tutor? To me, there is no decision to make 
here. Do you want lots and lots of Americans opening up savings 
accounts trying to help their children with whatever the specific needs 
are, or do you want a specialized program that rewards the students in 
400 schools? That is fine, but as a substitute for what we are talking 
about, there is no comparison.
  Madam President, I yield back my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you very much, Madam President.


                Amendment No. 2302 To Amendment No. 2301

    (Purpose: To amend section 6201 of the Elementary and Secondary 
  Education Act of 1965 to provide for student improvement incentive 
                    awards, and for other purposes)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I rise to offer a second-degree amendment to the 
Landrieu amendment, and I send it to the desk for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2302 to amendment No. 2301.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, the current discussion on education 
in the United States has been widespread. Both sides of the debate, I 
believe, truly have the best interests of our Nation's young people at 
heart. It

[[Page S3418]]

has been a good discussion, and I commend the Senator from Georgia, 
Senator Coverdell, for his leadership on this issue.
  We often differ on issues of school choice, Federal involvement in 
the classroom, and State flexibility. The amendment that I offer today 
addresses one of this Nation's educational needs while doing so in a 
manner which should not be controversial. This is the student 
improvement incentive grant program.
  The amendment I am offering today is quite simple in its nature. 
Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, States are given a 
level of flexibility with how to use some of those funds. My amendment 
provides yet another option for States.
  Under my amendment, States would be allowed to use some of their 
Federal education funds to provide awards to public high schools based 
on the schools' performances on statewide assessment tests, the content 
and substance of which would be entirely up to the State.
  There are several important elements to this proposal. First, this is 
not a new program but merely a new option from which States may choose. 
Second, the assessments would be based entirely on State priorities and 
desires. Third, no new funds are required. Thus, my proposal gives 
States a new way to create a healthy competition amongst public high 
schools without imposing new Federal requirements, additional Federal 
oversight, or increasing Federal spending.
  As my colleagues are well aware, approximately 2 months ago it was 
widely reported in the media that high school students in the United 
States scored well below their peers in an international exam in math 
and science. In fact, of the 21 nations involved, U.S. students ranked 
19th. In comparison, however, U.S. fourth graders performed strongly 
against their international peers on similar exams. Somewhere along the 
way we are failing our students by not encouraging them to maintain the 
high standards that they have demonstrated early in their academic 
careers.
  My amendment will help change this trend by creating financial 
incentives to encourage greater academic performance in our secondary 
schools. At the same time, it achieves this goal while leaving the 
control over education where it belongs, in the State and local 
communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the student improvement incentive 
grant amendment.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Just a point of clarification. The hour of 3:45 has 
arrived. I believe under a previous unanimous consent agreement, the 
Senate is about to proceed to a series of votes on amendments, 
beginning with Senator Gorton's, and that there would be 2 minutes for 
each amendment equally divided.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Consideration of the pending amendment is 
temporarily suspended.
  The pending question will occur on the Gorton amendment No. 2293, as 
amended. The Senator is correct that there will be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, then the remaining time on the 
amendment offered by Senator Kempthorne would occur immediately 
following the last vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.


                     Amendment No. 2293, as amended

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, the Gorton-Frist amendment is based on 
two philosophical principles. The first of those principles is that the 
present system under which 7 percent of the dollars going into 
education come from the Federal Government, together with 50 percent of 
all of the rules and regulations under which that education is 
provided, is not necessarily either in theory or in practice the best 
way to set policies for our public schools or to fund those public 
schools.
  It is based also on the philosophy that parents and teachers and 
principals and superintendents and elected school board members all 
across the United States not only care more about the children in their 
trust but are better able to set the educational policies for their 
children in their schools than are bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or 
even Senators in the U.S. Senate.
  The Gorton-Frist amendment, however, forces these two philosophical 
distinctions or principles on no one. Under this amendment, any State 
that likes the present system of Federal control is authorized to 
retain it. Any State that believes educational policy should be set at 
the State capital through a State school board or Governor or State 
superintendent of public instruction is free to adopt such a system. 
And any State that believes, as we do, that local control and local 
spending policies are best, is free to adopt that policy.
  We also guarantee that no State will lose money under this amendment. 
I commend it to the President and to the Members of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I agree with the Senator from 
Washington that if the State wants to tax its own people and do 
whatever it wants to, it should have the ability to do it. If the local 
community wants to tax its people, they ought to be able to do whatever 
they want. But what Senator Gorton is saying is, we are going to use 
Federal taxpayers' money, the money that is directed by the Congress.
  We have designated three very important areas that are eliminated by 
the amendment of the Senator from Washington.
  First, drug-free schools. I do not find any parents from 
Massachusetts saying, ``Abolish drug-free schools.'' The Gorton 
amendment will abolish it.
  Secondly, for the training of teachers in math and science, I do not 
find parents saying, ``We ought to abolish that program.'' The Gorton 
amendment does it.
  And third, in terms of raising high academic standards, the programs 
that help and assist local schools to be able to do it, I do not find 
parents in my State saying, ``Abolish that program.'' It will be 
abolished by the Gorton amendment.
  It makes no sense, Madam President. And there is no accountability 
under the Gorton amendment how these funds are being spent and what the 
effect of it is in improving academic achievement and accomplishment. 
To do it after 30 minutes of debate makes no sense whatsoever. I hope 
that the amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question now occurs 
on agreeing to the Gorton amendment No. 2293, as amended. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl

[[Page S3419]]


     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The amendment (No. 2293), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2296

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Hutchinson 
amendment No. 2296. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided prior to the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
vote in this series of four be limited to 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, this is a dollars-for-the-classroom amendment that 
expresses the sense of the Senate that we will do our best to ensure 
that 95 cents out of every dollar actually gets to the classroom where 
the needs are the greatest. Unfortunately, studies indicate that right 
now as little as 65 cents of every Federal education dollar actually 
gets down to the classroom. Where does it go? Much of it goes to 
bureaucracies, Federal and State. We have 307 Federal education 
programs.
  This simply says let's give 95 cents out of every dollar to the 
classroom. That will be $2,000 per classroom for every classroom in 
America--additional money that the teachers and the local school boards 
can determine how it should be spent. It maximizes local control. 
States' needs are different. To say 100,000 teachers or to say let's 
spend Federal dollars for construction isn't the wisest approach. It is 
better to let those decisions be made locally where the needs differ 
across the country.
  The question on this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is, Are you for 
bureaucrats, or are you for books? I think we want it to go to the 
classroom. Let's support this sense of the Senate.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, those who support the education programs, 
title I and other programs that will be affected, want the greatest 
amount of money to go to the local classrooms. So we support this 
measure. We have no problem whatsoever in supporting this measure. It 
is supported by the administration and by the Department of Education. 
We want to make sure that as much of the funds as possible go right 
into the classroom. We are absolutely in support of it. We hope the 
amendment will pass overwhelmingly.
  When the Senator initially offered his amendment, it provided not 
only for this measure but to eliminate the amendment of the Senator 
from Washington. Now the Senator from Washington will have a chance to 
have her amendment voted on.
  I hope all of our Members will support this measure. It makes good 
sense. We all want the resources to go into the classroom for the 
benefit of the children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chanber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Helms
      
  The amendment (No. 2296) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2295

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to Murray 
amendment No. 2295. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided before the vote.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  The amendment before us is very simple. It merely asks us to go on 
record as to whether or not we Members of the Senate believe we should 
support efforts to decrease class size in the early grades.
  As a parent of a child in public education, two children who have 
gone through our public schools, as a former school board member, as a 
member of the PTA, as a former educator myself who has been in the 
classroom, who knows the difference between having 18 young 4-year-olds 
or 24 4-year-olds, who knows the difference between teaching and crowd 
control, I will tell the Members of this Senate that decreasing class 
size is one of the most important things we can do to increase the 
education for our young children. Every Member here has talked about 
the need for increased math skills, the need for our young children to 
be able to read and write and have the skills they need. If we decrease 
class size, every parent in this country will tell you that it will 
make a difference. Studies show it. Parents know it. Teachers know it. 
It is time for this Senate to recognize that and move, on our part, 
with our responsibility, to decrease class size. I urge the adoption of 
this amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, this amendment calls for 100,000 new 
teachers paid for at the Federal level. It is an endorsement of the 
President's proposal. I reluctantly oppose it. Mr. President, 79 
percent of the teachers in Arkansas are satisfied with class size, 65 
percent of the teachers nationwide are satisfied with their class 
sizes. It is wrong to have a one-size-fits-all approach on the Federal 
level. We may need more teachers in some States, but we may not need 
them in others. So I believe this is an area States are already 
addressing,
  California and many other States have adopted programs to reduce 
class size. It is not something the Federal Government needs to get 
involved in. It has a $7 billion price tag. Those funds can be better 
used, and more wisely used, in other areas. So I ask my colleagues to 
oppose this sense-of-the-Senate resolution endorsing the 100,000 
teacher, $7 billion expansion of the Federal role in public school 
education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question occurs on 
the Murray amendment, No. 2295. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[[Page S3420]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Helms
      
  The amendment (No. 2295) was rejected.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2300

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Ashcroft 
amendment No. 2300, which is a second-degree amendment to the Levin 
amendment No. 2299.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate, 
equally divided, prior to the vote.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this amendment prohibits Federal funding 
for national testing in our schools unless there is explicit 
congressional authority for such funding, so that no funding of the 
Federal Government could be used to supply or provide for national 
tests unless the Congress specifically authorized it.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel of Nebraska be added as an 
original cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I believe the fundamental opportunity in education and 
the opportunity for achievement by children relates to the involvement 
of parents in education. Whenever we begin to dictate curriculum from 
Washington, with a national test which will ultimately define 
curriculum, we will have lost the genius of America's education system, 
which is local involvement in schools, parental involvement.
  For that reason, I believe this amendment should be adopted. I am 
pleased that Senator Lott has been in support of this amendment. I am 
pleased that a number of other individuals are supporting it strongly 
and am glad to have the cosponsorship of Senator Hagel. I urge its 
adoption.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nickles be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator's time has expired.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last November, 5 months ago, we worked 
out a bipartisan compromise. It received 87 votes here. It called for 
the National Academy of Sciences to do a study about the possibility of 
linking various State tests and commercial tests and called on this 
National Assessment Governing Board, an independent board, to go ahead 
and develop some test questions. And essentially it set up a procedure 
we could look at. It also prohibited the use of any funds for field 
testing or pilot testing, anything in this fiscal year.
  This amendment would gut all of that, would say the National Academy 
needs to stop in its tracks, it cannot complete its work. It would say 
that the National Assessment Board has to stop what it is doing and 
breach its contract.
  Later this year, in the appropriations cycle, we should revisit this 
issue and decide at that point whether to allow field testing. But we 
should not be prohibiting continued study of the issue and development 
of questions by the National Board at this point. So I urge colleagues 
to oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  All time has expired.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to the Ashcroft amendment No. 
2300. 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 North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Helms
      
  The amendment (No. 2300) was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Levin amendment, as 
amended.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as I understand the regular order now, it 
would be for me to now resubmit the amendment that I offered earlier 
today, which was recently defeated, in effect, through the adoption of 
the Ashcroft second-degree amendment. Under the regular order, I am 
allowed to resubmit this amendment so that we can have a vote on it, or 
it can be second degreed again.


                Amendment No. 2303 to amendment No. 2299

 (Purpose: To replace the expansion of education individual retirement 
 accounts to elementary and secondary school expenses with an increase 
  the lifetime learning education credit for expenses of teachers in 
                     improving technology training)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2303.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       Section 101 is null and void.

     SEC.   . MODIFICATIONS TO EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT 
                   ACCOUNTS.

       (a) Maximum Annual Contributions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 530(b)(1)(A)(iii) (defining 
     education individual retirement account) is amended by 
     striking ``$500'' and inserting ``the contribution limit for 
     such taxable year''.
       (2) Contribution limit.--Section 530(b) (relating to 
     definitions and special rules) is

[[Page S3421]]

     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Contribution limit.--The term `contribution limit' 
     means $500 ($2,000 in the case of any taxable year beginning 
     after December 31, 1998, and ending before January 1, 
     2003).''
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 530(d)(4)(C) is amended by striking ``$500'' 
     and inserting ``the contribution limit for such taxable 
     year''.
       (B) Section 4973(e)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``$500'' 
     and inserting ``the contribution limit (as defined in section 
     530(b)(5)) for such taxable year''.
       (b) Waiver of Age Limitations for Children With Special 
     Needs.--Section 530(b)(1) (defining education individual 
     retirement account) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following flush sentence:

     ``The age limitations in the preceding sentence shall not 
     apply to any designated beneficiary with special needs (as 
     determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary).''
       (c) Corporations Permitted To Contribute to Accounts.--
     Section 530(c)(1) (relating to reduction in permitted 
     contributions based on adjusted gross income) is amended by 
     striking ``The maximum amount which a contributor'' and 
     inserting ``In the case of a contributor who is an 
     individual, the maximum amount the contributor''.
       (d) No Double Benefit.--Section 530(d)(2) (relating to 
     distributions for qualified education expenses) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Disallowance of excluded amounts as credit or 
     deduction.--No deduction or credit shall be allowed to the 
     taxpayer under any other section of this chapter for any 
     qualified education expenses to the extent taken into account 
     in determining the amount of the exclusion under this 
     paragraph.''
       (e) Technical Corrections.--
       (1)(A) Section 530(b)(1)(E) (defining education individual 
     retirement account) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(E) Any balance to the credit of the designated 
     beneficiary on the date on which the beneficiary attains age 
     30 shall be distributed within 30 days after such date to the 
     beneficiary or, if the beneficiary dies before attaining age 
     30, shall be distributed within 30 days after the date of 
     death to the estate of such beneficiary.''
       (B) Section 530(d) (relating to tax treatment of 
     distributions) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) Deemed distribution on required distribution date.--
     In any case in which a distribution is required under 
     subsection (b)(1)(E), any balance to the credit of a 
     designated beneficiary as of the close of the 30-day period 
     referred to in such subsection for making such distribution 
     shall be deemed distributed at the close of such period.''
       (2)(A) Section 530(d)(1) is amended by striking ``section 
     72(b)'' and inserting ``section 72''.
       (B) Section 72(e) (relating to amounts not received as 
     annuities) is amended by inserting after paragraph (8) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Extension of paragraph (2)(b) to qualified state 
     tuition programs and educational individual retirement 
     accounts.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, paragraph (2)(B) shall apply to amounts received 
     under a qualified State tuition program (as defined in 
     section 529(b)) or under an education individual retirement 
     account (as defined in section 530(b)). The rule of paragraph 
     (8)(B) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.''
       (3) Section 530(d)(4)(B) (relating to exceptions) is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) an amount which is includible in gross income solely 
     because the taxpayer elected under paragraph (2)(C) to waive 
     the application of paragraph (2) for the taxable year.''
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 1998.
       (2) Technical corrections.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (e) shall take effect as if included in the 
     amendments made by section 213 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
     1997.
       On page 21, between lines 9 and 10, insert:

     SEC. 107. INCREASED LIFETIME LEARNING CREDIT FOR TECHNOLOGY 
                   TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 25A(c) (relating to lifetime 
     learning credit) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule for technology training of certain 
     teachers.--
       ``(A) In general.--If any portion of the qualified tuition 
     and related expenses to which this subsection applies--
       ``(i) are paid or incurred by an individual who is a 
     kindergarten through grade 12 teacher in an elementary or 
     secondary school, and
       ``(ii) are incurred as part of a program which is approved 
     and certified by the appropriate local educational agency as 
     directly related to improvement of the individual's capacity 
     to use technology in teaching,

     paragraph (1) shall be applied with respect to such portion 
     by substituting `50 percent' for `20 percent'.
       ``(B) Termination.--This paragraph shall not apply to 
     expenses paid after December 31, 2002, for education 
     furnished in academic periods beginning after such date.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to expenses paid after June 30, 1998, for 
     education furnished in academic periods beginning after such 
     date.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask that the new Levin amendment be 
laid aside to recur following the stacked votes tomorrow morning. It 
would be the first amendment to be debated after 3 votes tomorrow 
morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. What about debate on that amendment, Mr. President?
  Mr. COVERDELL. There will be 30 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, 
the Senate will now conclude debate on the following pending 
amendments: Coats, Kempthorne, and Landrieu.
  Following those concluding remarks, if any other Senator wishes to 
debate their amendment, the manager will remain in the Chamber for 
additional debate. The three amendments concluded this evening will be 
stacked to occur beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday. Having entered 
into this arrangement with all Senators, there will be no further votes 
this evening. The voting sequence tomorrow will begin at 9:30 a.m.
  Just for everybody's information, it is my understanding that the 
remaining amendments on the other side--Dodd, Bingaman, and Boxer--have 
all indicated they want to do that tomorrow, which will occur following 
the 30 minutes of debate on the Levin amendment. At this point we will 
finish Coats, Kempthorne and Landrieu, and there will be no further 
votes this evening.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Abraham pertaining to the introduction of S. 1970 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a very important education bill 
before us today. It builds upon the education savings accounts enacted 
last year. It expands the amount of money that can be saved and expands 
its uses to include K-12.
  About 14 million individuals are expected to sign up for these 
accounts by the year 2002. Contributions can be saved to cover college 
expenses or used when needed to pay for a wide range of education 
expenses during a student's elementary and high school years. Examples 
of eligible expenses include text books, computers, school uniforms, 
tutoring, advanced placement college credits, home schooling, after-
school care and college preparation courses.
  A tutor can make the difference between success or a student falling 
hopelessly behind.
  A computer can open the world to a child. Children growing up in 
homes with computers will be the achievers. I am afraid children 
growing up in homes without computers will be at a disadvantage. This 
bill will allow money from an education savings account to be sent on a 
computer, software, lessons on how to use the computer.
  The bill has several solid worthwhile provisions.
  It raises the limits on annual contributions to an education IRA from 
$500 to $2,000 per year, and allows accounts to be used for K-12 
expenses. The bill allows parents or grandparents to make the 
contribution in after-tax money each year.
  The accounts would grow with interest, and withdrawals for 
educational expenses would be tax-free. A+ accounts, as under current 
law, are targeted to middle income taxpayers. Eligibility phases out 
beginning at $95,000

[[Page S3422]]

for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. Under these terms almost 
all New Mexicans would be eligible to set up one of these accounts.
  The bill allows parents to purchase contracts that lock-in tomorrow's 
tuition costs at today's prices. This bill would make these savings 
completely tax-free.
  Families purchasing plans would pay no federal income tax on interest 
build-up. Under current law, state-run programs allowed tax-deferred 
savings for college. However, savings in such plans, when withdrawn, 
are taxable as income to the student. This provision would benefit 1 
million students.
  Twenty-one states have created tuition plans. New Mexico has not yet 
implemented one but it does have a proposal under consideration. If the 
state finalizes its pre-paid tuition plan future students would be able 
to benefit. Pre-paid tuition plans are a great way to secure the 
future.
  The bill extends through 2002, the exclusion for employers who pay 
for their employees' tuition and expands the program to cover graduate 
students beginning in 1998. The exclusion allows employers to pay up to 
$5,250 per year for educational expenses to benefit employees without 
requiring the employees to declare that benefit as income and pay 
federal income tax on the benefit. One million workers, including 
250,000 graduate students, would benefit from a tax-free employer-
provided education assistance provision.
  The bill also creates a new category of exempt facility bonds 
for privately-owned and publicly operated elementary and secondary 
school construction high growth areas. The bill makes $3 billion in 
school construction bonds over five years. This is enough to build 500 
elementary schools.

  I am pleased that the bill includes the amendment to provide new 
grants to states that (1) test K-12 teachers for proficiency in the 
subject area they teach and (2) has a merit based teacher compensation 
system.
  In line with my belief that teacher competence is key to improving 
American education, this bill creates incentives for states to 
establish teacher and merit pay policies.
  I believe the best teachers should be rewarded for their efforts to 
educate our children. A little competition in our public schools would 
be a good thing for rewarding those teachers who excel at their 
profession and motivating those who may need to improve their 
performance.
  This is but one step forward in our bid to improve the educational 
performance of American students. This amendment supports the principle 
that all children deserve to be taught by well-educated, competent and 
qualified teachers.
  I hope the Senate will complete its work quickly on this bill and 
that the President will sign it.
  The MERIT amendment would use the Eisenhower Professional Development 
Program (Title II) to provide incentive funds to states that establish 
periodic assessments of elementary and secondary school teachers, 
including a pay system to reward teachers based on merit and proven 
performance.
  The legislation would not reduce current funding for the Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program. Incentives will be provided to states 
that establish teacher testing and merit pay programs. The amendment 
permits the use of Federal education dollars to establish and 
administer these programs.
  The Eisenhower program, established in 1985, gives teachers and other 
educational staff access to sustained and high-quality professional 
development training. In 1998, the Congress approved $28.3 million, $10 
million more than in 1997, for the Eisenhower program to provide in-
service training for teachers in core subject areas.
  The President requested $50 million for the Eisenhower program in 
1999, an increase of $26.7 million above the $28.3 million provided in 
1998. New Mexico received $2.4 million in 1997 for all 89 school 
districts. The President funds his 1999 request at the expense of Title 
VI, Innovative Program Strategies, which New Mexico also heavily 
utilizes. He requests no funding for this program, which received $350 
million in 1998.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I announce that the order of business 
is to complete the Coats amendment. The author, Senator Coats, is here. 
I talked to the other side. We have some Senators who want to offer 
some proposals of their own not related to this legislation. But if we 
could--everybody is in agreement--we can proceed with the Coats 
amendment.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator from Indiana withhold for just a moment?
  We have now allowed several minutes to introduce a bill. Then we are 
going back to an amendment that should be on this bill. Then we have 
others here who would like to speak for up to 30 or 35 minutes. I think 
we are going to have to have some sort of an agreement on how it is 
going to work. Is this the only debate for amendments?
  Mr. COVERDELL. There are two others.
  Mr. FORD. Are they here?
  Mr. COVERDELL. They are not here. If we could facilitate Senator 
Coats, we can go to Senator Feingold.
  Mr. FORD. With the understanding that it is approximately 35 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I understand.
  Mr. FORD. Just so there is no misunderstanding, we are all on the 
same wavelength.
  Mr. COVERDELL. We are on the same wavelength.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the chairman and the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Coats is 
recognized to speak for 2 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2297

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, what is the time situation on this 
particular amendment? We were in the midst of offering it. We set it 
aside. There is some time remaining. I would like to know what time is 
remaining under the original amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). When the bill was set aside, the 
Senator from Indiana had 2 minutes remaining on the time, and the 
opposition had 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I reserve that 2 minutes. There is someone 
on the opposing side who wants to begin using their 15 minutes. This is 
obviously the time. Perhaps if there is no opposition----
  Mr. FORD. I am certain there will be opposition. Mr. President, I am 
here to try to help facilitate this. I don't know who will be here. I 
am under the impression we will have somebody who will oppose it. But 
as of now it is like on the other side. The other two Members are not 
here to oppose it either, I don't imagine. We have 30 minutes to work 
it out.
  I suggest that since the Senator from Indiana only has 2 minutes 
left, we will wait to see if we can find somebody to use up our 15, and 
the Senator could have 2 minutes tomorrow.
  Mr. COATS. I think it was well-understood by everybody involved in 
this amendment that I would offer it immediately after the stacked 
votes. I am here prepared to finish up my time. I would like to get it 
done, because my schedule is not going to allow me to wait for 35 
minutes while someone does morning business.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator may proceed. If there is no one here, I will 
yield back our time and then the Senator can have it voted on within 
the stacked votes in the morning.
  Mr. COATS. I will be happy to do that. Mr. President, I will use up 
the last 2 minutes.
  Very briefly, I do not think this amendment is all that 
controversial. It simply provides an extra incentive for individuals or 
organizations that want to make charitable contributions to scholarship 
funds which would provide scholarships for low-income children for 
educational purposes. As such, we are just simply offering an 
additional deduction of 10 percent for that specific purpose. I 
outlined earlier the basis for that and the reasons why we need to do 
that. I believe it complements the bill we are dealing with. The 
current bill addresses essentially middle income and above taxpayers. 
This goes to low-income taxpayers, and it gives them an opportunity to 
provide the kind of education they think is appropriate for their 
children.
  I hope my colleagues will accept it. The cost is offset by changes in 
the Tax Code which have been approved by the Finance Committee. There 
is no controversy there. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the 
amendment when the vote occurs tomorrow morning.

[[Page S3423]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. COATS. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum on the 15 
minutes on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield the balance of time in opposition to 
the Coats amendment. I understand the change is offset. Most people are 
happy with it. Therefore, there is no opposition at the moment. I am 
sure some will vote against it, but I yield whatever time this side 
might have. It is my understanding that we now go to Senator Feingold 
for a statement as if in morning business.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized under 
the previous order.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________