[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 46 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3473-S3495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 2303
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Bingaman and Murray be added as cosponsors to my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment provides a tax credit to
[[Page S3474]]
teachers who return to school to learn education technology. The credit
would be 50 percent of the cost of that training. The current situation
across our country is that educators are trying to find ways to use
technologies to enrich the learning experience and to prepare students
for a world in which information technologies are increasingly woven
into the fabric of our life and our work.
School districts all over this land are making investments in
hardware and in software and in connecting computers and in accessing
Internet and in distance learning. I traveled around my State, and I
have spent a lot of time doing this, focusing on education technologies
in the last 6 months. And I find, of course, as you would expect, there
is a great variety in terms of how advanced school districts are when
it comes to installing good computers, putting in the necessary
software, how many computers they have for their student body, how much
so-called local area networks, how many of those they have in the
school connecting the computers to each other, how much access to the
Internet in their school, to what extent are they connected to nearby
colleges or distant colleges and universities, and those kinds of
efforts. A huge effort is being made with different degrees of success.
But what these school districts tell me universally is that where
they are falling short is in the development of their teaching staff in
the use of the technologies they are able to acquire. That is the
common story I get from every school district--that we need to train
our teachers in the use of these technologies. Typically, we find that
only about 5 cents of the technology dollar is going into professional
development and 95 cents of the education technology dollar is going
into the hardware and software and connecters and the access.
This Government is spending a fortune, for instance, in the so-called
universal service fund to provide every school that applies with a
discount on their communication bills to access the Internet, for
instance, and on some of their internal linkages. But where we are
falling way below where we must be is when it comes to the training of
our teachers, of our professional staff in the use of these
technologies.
This first chart shows, as of the time that the statistics were taken
in 1994--and we do not think too much has changed since then; but this
is the last available year--how the States are doing when it comes to
the training of teachers.
How much education technology training do our teachers have? The U.S.
average, this red line on this chart, is 15 percent of our teachers; 15
percent of our teachers have at least 9 hours of training in education
technology. That is it. In my State, only 10 percent of the teachers--1
out of 10--had at least 9 hours of training in their lifetime in the
use of education technology. That is a woeful story.
What it means is that with all of the dollars that are going into
hardware and software and these other technologies that we are spending
pennies on, what is critically important is the skills to use the
technologies which are provided. The most difficult skill of all is the
one that has been least acquired. That is the ability to integrate the
material which is now available through these technologies into the
curriculum. Very few teachers are accessing the information, the
thousands of libraries now available to them through their computers,
the hundreds of field trips which they now can take in their classrooms
if they know how to use these technologies. Until our teachers have
those skills and are given those opportunities, we are not using these
technologies to their fullest or anywhere close to their fullest.
What this amendment does is, it says to those teachers who are
willing to go back for training, we will give you a tax credit of 50
percent of the cost of that training. Now, we already have a lifetime
learning credit of 20 percent that is a credit against the cost of
higher education. That has been a great advance. It is effective this
year. This amendment builds on that lifetime learning credit. It says
for those teachers who go back to gain the skills in the use of
education technology, they will get a 50 percent credit. It is a
significantly increased incentive to obtain those skills which are so
critically necessary if we are going to make use of these technologies
and if our children are going to have the kind of training and access
to material which can only be given by their teachers, if they have
these skills.
The person who is the technology director for the Michigan Education
Department is a man named Jamey Fitzpatrick. He was quoted as saying:
For every dollar we spend on computer hardware and software
in kindergarten through 12th grades, I think we would be
lucky if we saw five cents on the dollar spent on training
and support.
If we continue with those kinds of ratios we will never
realize the gain in student achievement that we think
technology has the potential to elicit. We obviously need to
put money into training.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Moseley-Braun be
added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. What we do is leave most of the beneficial aspects of the
underlying education IRA bill in place--first of all, that is what we
don't do; what we do do, however, is we do not permit withdrawals from
that IRA for K through 12. That is the most controversial part of this
bill, for reasons I will get to in a moment.
The rest of the provisions of this bill we do not touch. We don't
touch the expanded IRA relative to the cost of higher education. We
don't touch the extension of the tax exclusion for employer-provided
education assistance in this bill. We don't touch the tax exclusion for
withdrawals from State tuition programs or the limited school
construction provisions in this bill.
What we do, however, is not permit withdrawal from the IRA for the K
through 12 expenses. We don't do that because this most controversial
provision of this bill, it seems to me, is severely tilted against
public schools. I want to show a chart that gives a picture of how
serious this tilt is against public education in this IRA as it exists
in the underlying bill.
According to the Joint Tax Committee--and we have here a letter from
the Joint Tax Committee which lays out these numbers--according to the
Joint Tax Committee, the majority of the tax benefit will go to the 2.9
million taxpayers with dependents in private school. The minority of
the tax benefit will go to the 35 million taxpayers who have dependents
in public school. So, 35 million taxpayers, those with dependents in
public schools, get less than half the bill. The 2.9 million taxpayers
with children in private schools get 52 percent of the benefit.
Translated into dollars, in another way, the average taxpayer with a
child in private school gets a $37 tax deduction in the year 2002; the
public school taxpayer gets a $7 dollar deduction in the year 2002.
I want to read the provisions from the letter because that is
reflected in this chart. The Joint Tax Committee says, ``We estimate
that of those eligible to contribute, approximately 2.9 million returns
would have children in private schools. We estimate that the proposed
expansion of education IRAs to withdrawals to cover primary and
secondary education would extend approximately 52 percent of the tax
benefit to taxpayers with children in private schools. We estimate that
the average per return tax benefit for taxpayers with children
attending private schools would be approximately $37 in tax year 2002.
Conversely, we estimate that of the 38.3 million returns eligible,
approximately 35.4 million returns would have dependents in public
schools and that approximately 10.8 million of these returns would
utilize education IRAs. We estimate that the proposed expansion of the
education IRAs would extend approximately 48 percent of the tax benefit
to taxpayers with children in public schools with an average per return
tax benefit of approximately $7 in the year 2002.''
I gather I have used my time, so I will not reserve the balance of
it. I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
I rise in opposition to this amendment. As I stated yesterday, it
strikes at the heart of the Coverdell bill. It takes away the ability
of parents to use educational IRAs to pay for expenses related to the
schooling of their children between kindergarten and 12th grade.
[[Page S3475]]
Allowing parents greater resources to meet the educational needs of
their young children is what the Coverdell bill is all about. Senator
Levin proposes to take those resources away. Instead, he wants to
expand the lifetime learning credit for those who participate in
technology training. No one can argue against the proposition that
helping teachers become more capable in technology is a good thing. We
want our students to understand the technology of the 21st century. We
certainly need to ensure that our teachers are proficient as well. But
this amendment is not the way to reach that goal. First, expanding the
lifetime learning credit for teachers at the expense of expanding the
IRAs for our children runs contrary to the needs and objectives of
American families. Mothers and fathers need increased wherewithal to
support their children's educational goals. Mothers and fathers need
stronger, more useful IRAs. They need the ability to use more of their
own hard-earned money to take care of family priorities.
The Senate recognized this fact last year when we gave parents with
children in grades K through 12 the ability to use educational IRAs.
Our objective was to strengthen moms' and dads' ability to get the best
education possible for their children. Our objective made sense then,
and it certainly makes sense today.
The Coverdell bill empowers families to make decisions that are in
their best interests. It allows them to use their own resources for
their own benefit. Remember, the money in question here belongs to the
taxpayers. They earned it, it's theirs, they will save it, and they
should be able to choose how it will be spent. Let them use it where it
serves them best--on their children.
Mr. President, despite what some in this Chamber continue to argue,
the education IRA is not a boondoggle for the rich. The education IRA
phases out for high-income taxpayers. Because of these phaseouts, the
vast majority of the benefits will go to middle-income taxpayers.
According to the National Catholic Education Association, almost 70
percent of the families with children in Catholic schools have income
below $35,000, and almost 90 percent of those families have incomes
below $50,000. These families, along with virtually all of the 38
million American families with children in public or private elementary
and secondary schools, are the families that the Coverdell bill is
designed to help.
At the same time, we should all take note that two-thirds of the
individual income taxes in the United States are shouldered by
taxpayers earning over $75,000 per year. So one can see that the
Coverdell bill is focused on those families most in need of help.
As my colleagues know, the lifetime learning credit is a provision
that was included in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. It allows anyone
pursuing postsecondary education to take a tax credit each year equal
to 20 percent of their qualified expenses. The lifetime learning credit
is available to anyone who meets the income requirement. Full-time
students can take the credit, as can any professional who wants to
continue his or her education. And this includes teachers, engineers,
or research scientists.
What Senator Levin proposes is to single out teachers and increase
their lifetime learning credit to 50 percent for technology training.
Not only would this come at the expense of students and their families,
but it would be inequitable among the professions. Why should a teacher
receive an increased credit for his or her additional education when an
engineer is limited to the current 20 percent? More important, it
emphasizes one type of teacher continuing education over another. And
what is the basis of claim, for instance, that we should give a 50
percent credit for teachers to become more proficient in using and
teaching technology, but only give 20 percent to those who take courses
to become better reading or math instructors? Those skills are also
vital to function in a society.
It is important to note that the Coverdell bill already includes a
provision that allows an employee, such as a teacher, to receive, tax-
free, employer-provided education assistance. In other words, the bill
already encourages a school to pay for its teachers to receive training
such as contemplated by the Senator from Michigan. I believe we should
leave this type of policy decision to the local schools. If a school
attaches a high priority to the use of technology in the classroom--and
we hope they do--the school can send its teacher to a training class.
The best part of all is that the teacher would not have to pay anything
at all--no expenses, no taxes. Under the Levin proposal, a teacher
would still end up paying half the cost of this additional education.
In summary, the Levin amendment takes the means to use expanded IRAs
to educate children and it creates a more distorted and, I must say,
much more complex learning credit. This is not what we want to do, Mr.
President. If you ask the families of America how they would choose to
use the financial resources in question, I believe the vast majority
would make it clear that they want the opportunity to use their money
to give them greater flexibility and power to meet the educational
objectives of their family.
Mr. President, I oppose the Levin amendment. The educational IRA is
the foundation of the Coverdell bill. This modification guts the bill
at the expense of the children. For this reason, I oppose this
amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor and reserve any time that I may have left.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on this amendment
on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Seven minutes on the
Senator's side, and 5 seconds on the Democrat side.
Mr. COVERDELL. I will be very brief. I yield a minute of my time to
be added to the 5 seconds of the Senator from Michigan so that the
Senator from Connecticut can have a word.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, I had not intended to speak on this amendment. I have
an amendment coming up that I will be addressing. But I think it is
such an important amendment that our colleague from Michigan has raised
here. I think all of us have become much more highly sensitized to the
critical importance of the generation of students in our country who
are computer literate. It is no longer a question of whether or not
that technology and the awareness of it is going to be important. It is
critical. I have made the assertion that what keyboards and computers
bring to this generation is tantamount to what a ballpoint pen brought
to my generation. Any child today not completing elementary and
secondary school without being computer literate is going to be totally
unprepared for the 21st century economy.
Our colleague from Michigan has made it possible for the teachers of
our Nation, who truly would like to become better prepared to instruct
young people in the importance of this technology, to have the
wherewithal to do so. This ought not to be a partisan debate in any
way. It is a very thoughtful amendment, one that we all can be deeply
proud of.
We are only some 500 days away from a new millennium, and Senator
Levin has offered us a chance to make a difference for young people so
that they might be able to acquire these skills. I commend him for the
amendment and hope our colleagues will support it.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, certainly the amendment of the Senator
from Michigan is a thoughtful one. But as has been noted by the Finance
chairman, it completely makes moot a core principle of the underlying
bill, and for that reason I oppose it.
I don't dispute the numbers that are demonstrated in his chart, but I
would like to elaborate on them.
The education savings account essentially takes the education savings
account that was celebrated and signed by the President last year, $500
per year to be saved, and it could only be used for higher education.
The proposal before us takes that idea in its identical form and
expands the $500 to $2,000 and says you can use it in kindergarten
through college. So it broadens the capacity of it.
These numbers refer to kindergarten through high school only and do
not
[[Page S3476]]
look at the cap in these accounts--that is very difficult to project--
saved for college. That is No. 1.
No. 2, what that really means is that the tax relief, which is very
modest for those that are in public school, is about $250 million over
5 years, and for those in private school it is about $250 million.
There are more families using it in public schools, as is noted on the
chart. About 70 percent of what we estimate to be 14 million families
will use the savings account, and 70 percent of them will have children
in public schools and 30 percent in private.
The reason it starts to equal itself in the distribution is that
people who have children in private schools recognize that they are
paying for the public schools with their property tax base and they
have to pay for the private school education on top of that. So they
have to save more. They have a higher bar to reach. I agree. They will
therefore, likely save more, which means there will be more interest
that is earned, which means they would have a higher proportion of this
very small account.
In closing, I simply say that by offering a tax incentive over 5
years of $500 million-odd, which is modest in this big picture, it
causes Americans to do a very big thing. They go out and save $5
billion, all of which will be used for 20 million children no matter
where they are in school--public, private, or home--to help get them
ready for the new century.
Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks and yield back the
remainder of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I don't think I have any time remaining. If
I do, I will yield it. I thank my good friend for yielding that
additional minute to Senator Dodd, by the way. It was a generous
gesture.
Mr. COVERDELL. I was very glad to do so.
If I might, Mr. President, for administrative clarification, I
believe the sequence of events will be something like this. We are
going to now take up the amendment being offered by the Senator from
Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and there will be a vote. I think the
Senator would prefer that a vote occur after his debate. The Levin,
Boxer, and Bingaman amendments will be stacked for early this afternoon
just before the final vote. There are two more Senators who will debate
following the vote of Senator Dodd. I believe that is the description
of the situation we have right now during the day.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Amendment No. 2305
(Purpose: To strike section 101, and to provide funding for part B of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), for himself, and
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs.
Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 2305.
Mr. DODD. 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:
Strike section 101, and insert the following:
SEC. 101. FUNDING FOR PART B OF IDEA.
Any net revenue increases resulting from the enactment of
title II that remain available, taking into account the
provisions of this title, shall be used to carry out part B
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1411 et seq.).
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our colleagues,
Senators Leahy, Harkin, Kennedy, Wellstone, and Boxer, be included as
cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have in front of me a chart which
demonstrates what I think most Members of this body are familiar with;
that is, the rising cost of special education in our country and the
rising population of students who are requiring special education
services.
Presently, for the special education needs of America, 55 percent of
the cost is being borne by our States, and 35 percent is being borne by
local governments and local property taxes, and roughly 10 percent by
the Federal Government. It is the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), endorsed and supported by those of us here in
Congress, which rightly encourages and provides for the inclusion of
all children who require special education services in the educational
process of this Nation.
It is worthy of note that at the time the U.S. Congress passed the
IDEA legislation, it was recommended that the Federal Government would
provide 40 percent of the costs of special education services. Several
decades later, the Federal Government is presently only contributing 10
percent of the costs of special education. Mr. President, special
education costs are rising. We are told nationally that these numbers
are moving up. In 1991, special education costs were 17 percent of the
overall education budget; they are now 19 percent of the overall
education budget.
I might also point out that the amount being spent on regular
education has dropped to 56 percent, down from 58 percent. Also, the
population of special needs children is on the increase. The overall
population of children in elementary and secondary schools has gone up
about 7.3 percent in the last few years, whereas the number of children
requiring special education services has jumped over 12 percent in the
same period of time. We have rising costs, rising population, and the
Federal commitment to special education has remained static.
I mention this because I am offering an amendment that, with all due
respect to my colleague from Georgia, would take the $1.6 billion from
tax proposal that would provide $37 or $7 in tax relief for private and
public school families, respectively, and use that money to lower the
cost at the local and State level for special education services. If
the Federal Government is to meet its full commitment of 40 percent to
special education, it would need to provide $16 billion to state and
local school districts, more than four times the current funding.
Let me quickly add that I commend the Budget Committee and others in
recent weeks and months who have actually increased spending on special
education. The total commitment to States is slightly lower than $4
billion but is still substantially less than the $16 billion needed to
meet the 40-percent commitment.
I believe, given the scarce funding available to us, is that we would
be far wiser, with all due respect to the authors of this underlying
proposal, to take that $1.6 billion and give it back to the States and
local governments to reduce the rising cost of special education in
this country.
We are told that the underlying bill is about choice. I argue there
should be no choice when the needs of children with disabilities are
involved. Private schools can simply accept or reject students that
they want or don't want. If your child is a special needs child, you
don't have a choice whether you would like to go to a private school.
The only school system that has to take you is a public school system.
Parents with children with special needs don't have those choices.
Property taxpayers, sales taxpayers, and State income taxpayers don't
have any choice; they have to pay their tax bills.
The only people I know of at this very moment who have a choice about
education are the 100 of us in this body. We have a choice to take $1.6
billion and provide a $37 tax break for private school students and
their families, a $7 tax break for the public school students and their
families, or we can help state and local school districts by providing
them with $320 per special needs child so that they can provide
valuable special education services. That is what my amendment does. It
is saying, let's make a choice with rare funding dollars and apply them
to help special needs children.
Let me share how big a cost this is and point out the situation in a
number of States. In Colorado, the State must pay a 60-percent share
for special education services. In Connecticut, the State provides 59
percent of special education funding. In Maine, 33 percent; Michigan,
60 percent; Missouri, 60 percent; Rhode Island, 59 percent; Virginia,
68 percent. These are huge costs at the State and local level. I have
one community in my State, Torrington, CT, where 2 years ago the bill
was $635,000 for special education services.
[[Page S3477]]
Two years later, it has risen to $1.3 million. Mr. President, the
costs associated with special education can often be staggering.
What I am saying is, if we think this is a national goal, to do
something about special education, then we ought to be willing to help
our local towns and our States to reduce their share of special
education costs. The $1.6 billion that my amendment would provide is
not going to pay the entire bill. It is, however, a move in the right
direction. But when you have very scarce funding, wouldn't it be wiser
for us to make the choice here today to reduce property and State
taxes, by saying here is $1.6 billion, which we know is not going to
solve the whole problem, but I want to give that money back to the
States, back to the local governments, to bring down the cost of
special education services.
We made that promise, Mr. President. We said decades ago we would
provide 40 percent of the cost of special education, and we have never
provided more than 10 percent. There is a chance for us today to
provide, not $37, not $7 after taxes, but a $320 per child tax break in
terms of reducing the cost of providing special education services.
It seems to me this would be a far wiser way for us to spend our
money. I say after-tax dollars because I think there is some confusion.
Again, I say this with all due respect to the authors of the underlying
bill. But the $2,000 IRA contained in Senator Coverdell's legislation
is an after-tax proposal. It provides as much as if you put $2,000 in a
savings account and the interest that it earns, that is the money you
get the tax break on, not the $2,000 principle. So when I say it
provides a $37 and $7 tax break, those are real numbers.
Recently, I looked at what the cost of private schools is in the
greater Washington, DC, area. They run anywhere from $10,000 to $17,000
annually. Why are we providing a $37 tax break for families who are
already sending their children to schools that expensive when the $1.6
billion specified in this legislation could help lower property taxes
and assist with special education?
Recently, when speaking with mayors in Connecticut, they often
mentioned the high cost of special education services. By not
contributing 40 percent of special education costs, we are pitting
families against each other in these communities. I think every one of
us probably knows someone, maybe in our own families, that has a
special needs child. We know the concern, the fear, that a family goes
through in discovering that a child requires special education
services. It is a critically important issue. But I am also aware of
what happens in a community where you only have a handful of special
needs students and all of a sudden their services cost a bit more and
people get upset because it is their tax dollars that are paying for
that education. The school systems in our states need our assistance.
What we are offering here is some relief to State and local school
systems. It is not total relief. We have $1.6 billion over 10 years,
what are we going to do with the taxpayers' money of this country? Do
we give it back to the communities in Connecticut and elsewhere that
are struggling to meet the cost of special education? Or do I write a
$37 check to someone who is sending their child to a school that is
costing $10,000 or $13,000 or $14,000 a year? I don't know how you
justify it. I don't know how I can explain to my constituents not
providing some relief to their school systems for an area of great
concern and importance--special education.
That is the choice I get to make here in the next few minutes. Do we
take these dollars and return them to our States, return them to our
towns, trying to make a real difference for special education, or do we
take them to provide minor tax relief.
Now, again, let me mention briefly the role of public and private
education. At this very hour, all across our country, even on the west
coast where the Presiding Officer is from, children have started
school. There are 53 million children in elementary and secondary
schools at this very hour all across our country; 48 million of them
are in public schools and 5 million are in private schools. So we are
talking about $1.6 billion, $37 of which goes to students in those
private schools, $7 of which goes for those in public schools.
I am a product in many ways of private education. My parents made
that choice. I respect them for having made it. However, my parents
never thought they should get a tax break for doing so. They understood
that this Nation had a special obligation to public education and
particularly the families with special needs children. I had to be
accepted to the private schools I attended. They didn't have to take
me. Private schools can reject anyone they want. Public schools cannot.
Public schools must accept these children. And you have that family
that has done everything right and, unfortunately, has a situation with
a child who requires special education services, and they, of course,
want that child to succeed. They don't have the choice of going to a
private school. Private school is not going to take that cost on. They
have to attend a public school. Let us try to provide the valuable
resources specified by this legislation to our local communities to
help that family receive special education services for their child, to
say to the other property taxpayers in that town that we are going to
provide the 40 percent of special education costs we promised we would
and never have.
One hundred of us here in the next 20 minutes or 15 minutes will be
given the choice of deciding which is a higher priority. It is not a
question of we would like to do everything. We can't do everything.
But, we have $1.6 billion and we are going to decide in the next 15
minutes where it is going to go.
Does it go toward a $37 tax break for someone who has their child
enrolled in a private school, or does it come back to that community in
my State and other States all across this country to provide some
needed tax relief--at $320 per child--to begin the process of lowering
the cost of special education services and making a difference in our
towns and for these families. That is really the choice. That's the
real choice we have before us today.
Mr. President, let me ask how much time I have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and----
Mr. DODD. I withhold the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 15 minutes in
opposition if he chooses to use it.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, there are so many numbers tossed
around. Anybody listening to this debate must be somewhat befuddled.
You try to step back from it and look at the bigger picture.
First of all, the concern of the Senator from Connecticut about the
funding of special education is a real one, but he has already alluded
to one of the major problems, and that is this mandate, which is one of
the largest mandates in American history, ordered by the Congress on
local communities in 1975, and in 1975 the promise was 40 percent of
the funding would be Federal, 40 State and 20 local. Now, the other
side, until 1994, was in control of the Congress and never sent the
check.
Since we have been in the majority, last year we put in another $700
million. The Senate budget resolution placed special education as the
top priority. Republicans are seeking an additional $2.5 billion over
the next 5 years for educating children with disabilities. In fiscal
year 1997, the President requested $3.6 billion for this IDEA. Our
Congress provided $4 billion for it. In fiscal year 1998, the President
requested $4.2 billion for this. We came up with $4.8. The President's
proposal for 1999 proposes $4.8 billion a year for IDEA. Our resolution
calls for $5.3 billion, a $0.5 billion increase.
So, while the other side controlled the Congress, this promise was
left unfulfilled. Since we have controlled the Congress, we have begun
paying down that obligation. In the Republican BOOKS proposal, we
proposed fully funding it. The Budget Committee is moving rapidly in
that direction. We are not there yet. And we did it, and have been
doing it, without gutting other ideas.
So the additional money my friend from Connecticut talks about that
ought to be fulfilling this promise--it is being done. We are doing
exactly what he has asked that we do, and--comma ``and''--we are trying
to help 14 million American families individually take charge and help
to connect them to the education of their children. We do not think it
is mutually exclusive, you have to do this or you have to do
[[Page S3478]]
that. We are doing both. So, since we have been in the majority, and
the Senator acknowledged it, we have been moving to try to fund IDEA.
This $1.6 billion that's referred to, that is tax relief over 10
years, and the $37, of course, is a statistical average, as is the $7.
But it does not take into account the principal. The tax relief was
only accrued because of the principal. For $37, you have to have $1,000
in the account; for $7, you have to have $250. But what it means is we
will have taken this $1.6 billion in relief to the same middle-class
families that the President designated last year, the same criteria,
same concept, and the Joint Tax Committee tells us that because of that
modest tax incentive, these 14 million families over 10 years--that is
the 10-year number you are using--will save, in principal and
accumulated interest, over $10 billion; 10 billion new dollars coming
behind education.
These $10 billion are not public dollars. They are private. They are
willfully volunteered by these families. So it means that public
education will get, over the next 10 years, in support of it, $5
billion. And private will get $5 billion. And, yes, the private
represents fewer families, but it still means, at the bottom line at
the end of the day, that there is $5 billion flowing behind public
schools all across the country and there is $5 billion flowing behind
private and home schools across the country.
Those are very smart dollars, too, because they are in individual
family checking accounts where people know exactly what the frailty or
problem is of a given child. If it is a math deficiency, it is going to
go to hire a math tutor. If it is an inner city student who does not
have a home computer, it is going to purchase a home computer. If it is
transportation that is needed for an afterschool program that we all
want to encourage --it is smart dollars. Public dollars have a hard
time doing that, going right to the problem. If it is dyslexia or
special education, it will flow right to it. And no school board is
going to have to raise the property tax to get ahold of this $10
billion, no State is going to have to raise income tax, and we are not
having to raise taxes. This is volunteered money, and I think the value
of the money is geometrically increased, it is probably worth three
times other dollars because it is being driven right into the child's
need.
The point we do not talk a lot about here--and they are not in these
figures, either--is that the one distinction this savings account has
is that it can accept contributions from sponsors--an employer, a
church, a grandparent, a sister or brother, a neighbor, a benevolent
association. And as people understand this and they begin to connect to
these ideas, there is going to be a lot more money in those accounts
than we have even envisioned.
Another point I would make about the savings account to my colleague
from Connecticut, is that every time a family makes a conscious
decision to open a savings account--every time they do it--there is a
mental connection to that child's education. And every month, for 20-
some-odd years, they will get a notice from some financial institution
that tells them the condition of that child's account. It will remind
them every month of the requirements and needs and will make them think
about what those children need.
I can certify that to be absolutely true because my dad and I did the
same thing for my sister's two sets of twins. We knew we were going to
have some problems with the financial burden. So we started putting a
little away. It was not a huge amount of money when they had to go to
school--but it was a lot. And if this had been in place, it would have
been twice what we had in that account. I think we got it up to $6,000
or $7,000. It would have been doubled. It could have been tripled if we
kept it 30 years and used it for college. There is a special ed feature
of this, too. Because if the child has a special educational need, it
will stay with the child until he or she is 30 years old.
So, my point is this. We agree that special ed needs attention and
the Congress has been a party in seeing to this, and it has created
enormous problems and we are responding to it. I am just citing the
numbers here. But we are doing it, along with other reforms. We are
doing it with an education savings account. We are doing it with a
school construction proposal. We are doing it, helping employers fund
continuing education for their employees. We are doing it and we are
helping support 21 States that have prepaid tuition programs for
families to help get ready for the cost of higher education. Mr.
President, 17 more States are coming into the picture.
We are accomplishing the funding of IDEA--which we agree is
important. But we are not stopping the other changes and other ideas to
help families. My colleague mentioned somewhere, I believe, around 50
million are in our elementary and secondary schools. Mr. President, 20
million of them will be beneficiaries of these accounts, half of the
entire population. Some will be more; some will be less. Some will save
the full amount; some will only save part of it. Some will accumulate
$1,000; some will accumulate the entire amount. But they will all be
helped and they will all be reminded about the needs of those children
Like I said, we are funding IDEA. We are giving parents new tools. We
are giving employers new tools. We are supporting the States with
prepaid tuition programs. And we are building new schools. That is the
underlying motion here.
Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 12 seconds. The
Democratic side has 1 minute 18 seconds.
Mr. DODD. I yield a minute to my good friend from Rhode Island, and I
ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I rise in very strong
support of the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. I think it
illustrates two important points.
First, the huge gap between what the Federal Government promised in
terms of special education support to the States and what was
delivered. Even though, as the Senator from Georgia pointed out, we are
trying to do better, we can do much better. And using these resources
rather than engaging in the private savings plan as the Senator from
Georgia proposes, but using these resources to assist special
education, I think, will be the best way to use these dollars.
The second point I think the amendment of the Senator from
Connecticut illustrates is the critical role that public education
plays in our country, because these students--typically these disabled
students--are all public education students. Private facilities don't
take these individuals typically because they can't afford them and
they think they are disruptive. That is the essence of private
education. They can pick and choose.
A public school cannot. We have committed ourselves in this Congress
to ensure that every child in this country, regardless of ability or
disability, has a free, excellent public education. But what that means
in practice is that our public schools have to respond to large numbers
of special education students, something to which private education
does not respond. That is, I think, at the heart of this debate.
If we are going to have a public school system that we expect to give
education to all of our citizens, then we cannot siphon off resources
to private education in the way that is proposed by these savings
accounts. We have to match our orders and commands to the schools of
America and to educate all of our citizens with resources.
This amendment does that. It preserves a program that we have all
stood up and said is vitally important to this country, both
educationally and socially--and that is special education --and it does
so by reinforcing public education. That is the way we should proceed.
I commend the Senator from Connecticut for his efforts in regard to
this amendment today.
Mr. DODD. I thank my good friend from Rhode Island. Mr. President, I
understand there will be a point of order raised against this
amendment. I regret that, because I am not asking to spend any more
money than the underlying amendment does, but I realize this is a point
of order that will be sustained. I will make an appropriate motion to
vote on that.
[[Page S3479]]
I am sorry that is going to be the case, because I really do believe
that this is the one opportunity, a chance, after we all talked about
trying to do something, about reducing the cost to communities, to make
the choice to do so. But I need 60 votes, I am afraid, to prevail on
all of that. When the appropriate motion is made, I will respond to it.
I hope that will not be the case. I hope we can have an up-or-down vote
as we have had on every other amendment.
I believe my time has expired, and if it has, I believe my colleague
wants to make an appropriate motion.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, has the proponents' time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has expired.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I do not believe we need to be in a
dilemma where it is either/or--do this and not the education savings
account, or do the other.
The Senator from Connecticut is correct that I will raise a point of
order. The Congressional Budget Office has told us this amendment
creates a new entitlement for special education, a program which has
always been discretionary since its creation in 1985. This spending
would be charged to the Finance Committee, which has already exceeded
its allocation.
Therefore, we conclude that amendment No. 2305, offered by my
colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, violates section 302(f) of
the Congressional Budget Act because it provides for an increase to
direct spending beyond the allocation of the committee of jurisdiction.
I, therefore, raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget
Act against this amendment. I assume my colleague will move to waive.
MOTION TO WAIVE THE BUDGET ACT
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act so that the
amendment may be considered. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield back my time in order to facilitate the two
motions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The question is on agreeing to
the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 2305,
offered by the Senator from Connecticut. 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 Colorado (Mr. Campbell)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Chafee
Collins
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
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--53
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Campbell
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that in the
regular order we will now go to the amendment to be offered by the
Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
15 minutes.
Amendment No. 2306
(Purpose: To improve academic and social outcomes for students by
providing productive activities during after school hours)
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Daschle, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an
amendment numbered 2306.
Mrs. BOXER. 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, add the following:
TITLE ____--AFTER SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SAFETY
SECTION ____01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``After School Education and
Safety Act of 1998''.
SEC. ____02. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to improve academic and social
outcomes for students by providing productive activities
during after school hours.
SEC. ____03. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Today's youth face far greater social risks than did
their parents and grandparents.
(2) Students spend more of their waking hours alone,
without supervision, companionship, or activity than the
students spend in school.
(3) Law enforcement statistics show that youth who are ages
12 through 17 are most at risk of committing violent acts and
being victims of violent acts between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
SEC. ____04. GOALS.
The goals of this title are as follows:
(1) To increase the academic success of students.
(2) To improve the intellectual, social, physical, and
cultural skills of students.
(3) To promote safe and healthy environments for students.
(4) To prepare students for workforce participation.
(5) To provide alternatives to drug, alcohol, tobacco, and
gang, activity.
SEC. ____05. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) School.--The term ``school'' means a public
kindergarten, or a public elementary school or secondary
school, as defined in section 14101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
SEC. ____06. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out a program under
which the Secretary awards grants to schools to enable the
schools to carry out the activities described in section
____07(a).
SEC. ____07. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES; REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Authorized Activities.--
(1) Required.--Each school receiving a grant under this
title shall carry out at least 2 of the following activities:
(A) Mentoring programs.
(B) Academic assistance.
(C) Recreational activities.
(D) Technology training.
(2) Permissive.--Each school receiving a grant under this
title may carry out any of the following activities:
(A) Drug, alcohol, and gang, prevention activities.
(B) Health and nutrition counseling.
(C) Job skills preparation activities.
(b) Time.--A school shall provide the activities described
in subsection (a) only after regular school hours during the
school year.
(c) Special Rule.--Each school receiving a grant under this
title shall carry out activities described in subsection (a)
in a manner that reflects the specific needs of the
population, students, and community to be served.
(d) Location.--A school shall carry out the activities
described in subsection (a) in a school building or other
public facility designated by the school.
(e) Administration.--In carrying out the activities
described in subsection (a), a school is encouraged--
(1) to request volunteers from the business and academic
communities to serve as mentors or to assist in other ways;
[[Page S3480]]
(2) to request donations of computer equipment; and
(3) to work with State and local park and recreation
agencies so that activities which are described in subsection
(a) and carried out prior to the date of enactment of this
Act are not duplicated by activities assisted under this
title.
SEC. ____08. APPLICATIONS.
Each school desiring a grant under this title shall submit
an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may
require. Each such application shall--
(1) identify how the goals set forth in section ____04
shall be met by the activities assisted under this title;
(2) provide evidence of collaborative efforts by students,
parents, teachers, site administrators, and community members
in the planning and administration of the activities;
(3) contain a description of how the activities will be
administered;
(4) demonstrate how the activities will utilize or
cooperate with publicly or privately funded programs in order
to avoid duplication of activities in the community to be
served;
(5) contain a description of the funding sources and in-
kind contributions that will support the activities; and
(6) contain a plan for obtaining non-Federal funding for
the activities.
SEC. ____09. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1998 through
2002.
SEC. ____10. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
It is the sense of the Senate that funding to carry out
this title should be provided by a reduction in certain
function 920 allowances, as such reduction was provided in
the Senate-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 1999.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair inform me when I have
used 8 minutes.
Mr. President, I am very pleased to offer my After School Education
and Safety Act as an amendment to the Coverdell bill. I want to mention
those who are original sponsors of this legislation. They are: Senators
Murray, Bingaman, Johnson, Lieberman, Sarbanes, Kerry from
Massachusetts, Dodd, Durbin, Levin, Akaka, Kohl, Wellstone, Bryan,
Kennedy, Inouye, Daschle, and Moseley-Braun. I mention them because I
am very proud of their support for this very important measure.
This is not a new issue. I presented this plan to the entire Senate
during the budget markup, and I am very pleased to tell you that my
amendment was adopted unanimously. I think most Senators understand the
fact that after-school programs are very important for two reasons.
First of all, our children need the mentoring help, our children need
the attention, and our children need the community support after school
because it really increases their academic achievement.
Secondly, the FBI has told us that from the hours of 3 p.m. to 6
p.m., juvenile crime goes way up because our children are joining
gangs, and they are getting into trouble after school. We need to do
something to keep them busy and to keep them out of trouble. That is
why I believe I got such unanimous support for this legislation during
the budget debate. We have set aside $50 million in the budget for this
program. Now we have a chance to authorize it.
I am very hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
now follow though on the commitment they made in the budget resolution.
Mr. President, in this picture you can see some of the faces of what
we are talking about. These are children in a California after-school
program in Sacramento. You can see from the looks on their faces how
excited they are about the work they are doing after school.
We have some others pictures to show you. This picture shows some of
the valuable mentoring that occurs in this after school program. These
children are working in small groups with a teacher or volunteer. These
children are learning a tremendous amount. In fact, the academic
performance of these students has dramatically increased as a result of
the attention that they are getting after school.
Here are some pictures of the children learning music. There was a
new study that just came out yesterday that says that children who
engage in musical activities achieve higher levels of academic success.
I see that our majority leader is on the floor. He had a group of
singing Senators and I think he realizes the value of music. Music
promotes camaraderie and bring us together.
Here we see the children learning how to play the drums in an after-
school setting.
Finally, I have a picture of children working with one of the law
enforcement officers who come into these programs.
Whether it is L.A.'s Best or Sacramento Start, whether it is the
Tenderloin Program in San Francisco, or our after school program in
Oakland, all of these after school initiatives desperately need some
attention from our National Government. There is not one program in the
Department of Education that is exclusively for after school, not one.
Through my amendment we have an opportunity to improve the Coverdell
bill, a bill that started off as a very simple bill. Unfortunately, I
think that this bill is turning into an anti-education bill. I have to
say that with a heavy heart because I really thought that we would have
some bipartisanship.
But what has happened to this bill? I think what we have before us is
a bill that has been amended in such a way that it does great damage to
our children. Let me explain what I mean.
We had a number of amendments that were rejected out of hand --
amendments to try to rebuild our schools. I understand why Senators who
like the underlying bill voted against that, but they have not reached
across the aisle to try to come up with any compromise on it at all.
Our kids are facing schools that are crumbling. We do nothing. We
reject it out of hand. We don't work for compromise. We say no. We had
an amendment simply expressing support for reducing class sizes that
was only debated for 3 minutes. That amendment passed. But then someone
changed the vote, and we rejected that. If you ask parents all over
this country, they will tell you that they want smaller class sizes.
So what provisions do we accept? We also voted on an amendment that
essentially will prohibit the implementation of a program to test our
students so parents will know if their kids are doing well or doing
poorly and schools can be held accountable. To this, we say yes. To me
this is unbelievable. We have an education bill here is that is turning
into an anti-education bill, an antiparent bill, an antistudent bill.
We also have other amendments that did away with a whole series of
programs and made them optional for schools.
When Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon he said it was ``one small
step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' This bill was one, tiny
step forward for education, and it has become a huge step backward for
education.
Listen to the list of the nationally recognized programs that are
done away with summarily in this bill.
Critical programs for disadvantaged kids including Title I; School to
Work; Goals 2000; STAR schools; education technology; Eisenhower
professional development, which is teacher training; safe and drug-free
schools; magnet school assistance; telecommunications demonstration
project for math skills, a fund for the improvement of education. The
Javits gifted and talented education funding to support programs for
special children is done away with. The Eisenhower regional math and
science consortium is done away with. If you read President
Eisenhower's comments on what we ought to do in education in the
1950's, he said, ``It takes more than guns to make us strong.'' We need
strong kids and we need them to learn. Yet now we are doing away with
the Eisenhower program.
We are eliminating the International Education Exchange, which
supports educational exchange programs. That is what the Gorton
amendment did away with, or made it optional. The Gorton amendment took
the National Government completely out of education. Education is the
most important thing in the world, and this bill is a giant step
backward.
We can improve this bill a little bit if we support the Boxer
amendment to support education and reduce juvenile crime.
I told you before that juvenile offenders commit crimes between the
hours of 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. That is why the police in my home state are
supporting
[[Page S3481]]
the Boxer amendment. This includes bipartisan support from the chiefs
of police of many, many cities in my State. California law enforcement
understands that when it comes to our children, we shouldn't seek party
lines. That is why I hope people will vote for this.
Let's hear what the police chief from Los Angeles says about the need
to invest in our children:
Police leaders know that America's commitment to putting
criminals in jail must be matched by its commitment to
keeping kids from becoming criminals in the first place.
Here is another quote from our law enforcement officials.
``Crime Fighters Support After-School Programs'':
We . . . call on all public officials to protect public
safety by adopting commonsense policies to: Provide for all
of America's school-age children and teens after-school
programs, and access to weekend and summer . . .
This statement is very, very clear. The organization that made this
statement--Fight Crime, Invest in Kids--has 170 of the Nation's leading
police chiefs, sheriffs, and prosecutors. Across the country law
enforcement officials support after school programs.
Mr. President, I am hopeful that we will see a little bipartisanship.
You all voted for it in the budget. You know what we did. We cut
Government travel to pay for this initiative to fund 500 after school
programs. The local school districts will design them. They will pull
in community groups like Big Brothers and Big Sisters. They will bring
in the business community.
Mr. President, we can keep our kids learning and keep them out of
trouble. There is no magic solution to solve all the problems that our
Nation is facing in terms of crime. But if we had to choose one way to
fight crime it should be to keep our kids engaged when they are in
school.
I really look forward to this vote. I hope it will be bipartisan.
I yield 2 minutes to my friend, Senator Johnson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 4 minutes 10
seconds remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. I retain the remainder.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and
applaud her great leadership on what I think is one of the critical
issues in our Nation today.
I think it needs to be emphasized that the after-school program
amendment being offered by Senator Boxer is not an alternative to the
underlying Coverdell bill. Unlike other amendments that we have
considered today, this is an add-on that is independent of the funding
that is committed to the Coverdell legislation.
I have been holding meetings all around my State of South Dakota,
which is an overwhelmingly rural State. The Senator from California
represents a State with large urban areas. One of the things that we
share is a very strong sense from parents, from child care providers,
teachers and school administrators, and from everyone who follows this
issue that after-school programs are among the most important items on
which we should focus our attention.
In fact, the Republican Governor of my State has played a leading
role in our State in trying to better utilize our school resources,
recognizing that working moms are a larger and larger percentage of the
work force. Welfare is pushing more and more people, mostly working
moms, into the workplace because we have provided bipartisan support
for that goal. We have increasing numbers of latchkey kids in all of
our communities, large and small. After-school programs for these
children are either nonexistent or far too expensive. We have studies
from our law enforcement officials indicating overwhelmingly that
between the hours of 3 to 6 in the afternoon is the greatest amount of
juvenile crime, alcohol and drug experimentation, and sexual
experimentation. All this takes place because we have an entire
generation of young people in unsupervised settings, and these problems
are becoming more widespread.
I applaud Senator Boxer and her effort to come up with an amendment
that not only addresses this key issue but does it in a way that does
not create new Federal bureaucracy, does not federalize anything but
instead utilizes local resources, leaves the options and the
administration and the decisions at the local level. Because of all of
these strong reasons, I think this is a very positive and constructive
contribution to the underlying legislation, and I certainly again
applaud the Senator's leadership, and yield back the time to her.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we have just been joined by the Senator
from Arkansas, who I believe rises in opposition to this amendment. I
yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Georgia.
I rise to speak in opposition to the Boxer amendment. My concern is
that while there is, without doubt, an acknowledged need for after-
school care and an acknowledged need for mentoring and tutorial-type
programs, this would be taking the wrong step in the wrong direction
and would create another Federal program, which, in my estimation,
would be highly duplicative of existing programs, a multiplicity of
Federal programs that already have been created for this purpose.
School districts already have the authority to establish after-school
learning centers, many already financed, and will benefit from
additional provisions of this year's budget for after-school programs.
Let me give just a few examples. The 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act provides $40 million for rural and inner-city public
schools to establish after-school programs. The Safe and Drug-Free
Schools Act allows money to be spent on after-school programs with a
drug and violence prevention component. The child care development
block grant and the community development block grant also provide
money for child care, including after-school care. The Juvenile Justice
Act will also target millions of dollars on prevention programs,
including mentoring programs and after-school programs. It has already
passed the House. These are just to give a few examples.
So I, once again, must object to the philosophy underlying the
Senator's amendment to create another Federal program. While I agree
that one-on-one mentoring and tutoring is valuable, it will help
improve educational achievement of students, such tutoring is already
allowable under at least 19 other Federal programs.
So I have listed a number of programs in which we have after-school
care provided. There are 19 programs that have tutoring and mentoring
components: AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve, VISTA, JUMP, the Juvenile
Justice Mentoring Program, CAMP, the Migrant Education Mentoring
Program, TRIO, are all examples of existing mentoring and tutoring
programs that are out there already.
The Senator's amendment, in my estimation, would simply duplicate
these existing programs. In addition, we find there are a great many
volunteer organizations that are providing and supplying after-school
care currently. We are going to prohibit them, exclude them from the
possibility of even applying for, competing for these grants. And so I
think that is a serious, serious weakness in the amendment as well.
Organizations like the YMCA would be ineligible to compete for the
grants even though they currently are doing a tremendous job in
providing after-school care in many cities and many school districts.
So to say it has to be school-based, run through the school, I think
would unfairly exclude those that are currently doing such a great job.
The application described in Senator Boxer's amendment is a laundry
list of paperwork. Read the amendment: identify goals, provide evidence
of a collaborative effort, describe how the program would be
administered, demonstrate how the activities will utilize or cooperate
with programs, describe sources of other funds, provide a fundraising
plan. All of these will require more bureaucrats, more administration,
more reports, additional costs, and it would in all of that duplicate
what we already have out there.
[[Page S3482]]
I think it is the wrong thing for us to establish another Federal
program when we have good programs there that need additional
resources. We do not need to dilute that, diminish that by starting
another Federal program for after-school care for tutoring and
mentoring.
So I ask my colleagues to consider this, do not just vote for an
amendment because it has a good purpose, because it has a good goal in
mind. Consider seriously that this program will be competing with a
whole host of Federal programs already designed to meet this need in
our schools and among our young people. I think that need is being met,
and it would be a mistake for us to create more bureaucracy and a new
Federal program. I hope my colleagues will oppose the Boxer amendment.
I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for
a question. As I understand what the Senator is saying, we have sort of
gotten ourselves into this difficulty over the years by creating
another program and another program. How many programs did the Senator
say we already have?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. There are 19 existing programs for mentoring and
tutoring on the books as well as a whole host of programs dealing with
after-school care.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator from
Georgia has 10 minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate that, Mr. President.
In reading the amendment, it appears to me this establishes a direct
link between the Department of Education--Federal--and a school. I do
not see from reading this that the grant process would run through the
State's board of education or the district board of education. This
would be school to the Secretary.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is my understanding as well, which is another
step I believe in federalizing our local schools and removing the
control ultimately from the local schools.
Mr. COVERDELL. I did think that was a philosophical problem, but I
think the more important issue that the Senator raises is this layering
and layering and layering. We are struggling with that in every
component of the Government. I don't know how many programs we have for
students. It just seems that we keep coming up with one after another
after another.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. With another new program, there is another layer of
bureaucracy, another level of bureaucracy created. It really dilutes
the resources we have actually getting to those kids who are in need of
after-school caring and one-on-one tutoring.
Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Arkansas.
I do want to address several of the remarks that were made by the
Senator from California with regard to the legislation in general.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. COVERDELL. And the Senator from California?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 2 minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the Senator indicated that the
underlying legislation could actually be harmful. I am puzzled by that
statement, somewhat stunned. And that we have not reached out.
The first point I make is that the underlying legislation, in great
part, has been designed by a colleague of the Senator from California,
Mr. Torricelli, of New Jersey, who sits right next to her. The
underlying proposal has a significant component for new school
construction. The legislation was designed and offered in the Finance
Committee by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, on the other side of
the aisle. The underlying proposal has a very key provision to enforce
or reinforce States that have prepaid tuition to help children meet
college costs, and that was designed by Senator Breaux, of Louisiana,
on the other side of the aisle. The underlying provision has a key
component to help employers help employees who need continuing
education, and that was either designed by Senator Moynihan from New
York or Senator Breaux from Louisiana.
So the underlying proposal, if you really want to add up just the
financial impact, is 80 percent designed by the other side of the aisle
and about 20 percent from our side. I guess in the general division of
the issues, it is about 50/50. But the underlying proposal will make
available to 14 million families and half the school population of the
United States, or thereabouts, the benefits of education savings
accounts that their parents or sponsors can open; will reinforce the
prepaid tuition programs of 21 States in the Union, 17 of which are
coming on board; will support continuing education for 1 million
employees, 1 million students in these prepaid tuition programs, and
250,000 graduate students.
I know we can have our differences about how to confront the issue of
education. It is good that we are having the debate. We all want to
improve it. We all want to get ready for the new century. But I don't
think it is accurate to suggest that the underlying proposition would
be harmful, A, or, B, that it is a partisan instrument, because it just
is not.
Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 5 minutes 15
seconds.
Mr. COVERDELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Boxer's
amendment to the Education IRA bill because it will ensure schools
across our nation have the additional resources they need to establish
and expand after-school programs for school-aged children. With more
and more parents of school-aged children working outside the home, we,
as a nation, must make a commitment to our children to ensure they have
safe and supervised places to be during the after-school hours. This
amendment would provide much-needed funding to schools to set up such
programs in their buildings or other public facilities, a cost-
efficient way to provide children and teens with activities after the
school bell rings.
With youth at most risk of getting into trouble between 3 and 8 p.m.,
this additional funding will help keep teens out of trouble during
these critical hours. I know how effective and important after-school
programs are, parents around the country know it and our law
enforcement officers know it. In fact, a recent survey of nearly 800
police chiefs from across the nation found that 90 percent of the
chiefs viewed prevention as a key factor in reducing our nation's
juvenile crime rates. In my opinion, the best crime reduction strategy
is one which prevents crime from happening. The $250 million authorized
in this amendment is a good investment, not only because it will
provide children with a safe haven, but also because it will likely
lead to reduced crime rates in neighborhoods which choose to implement
or expand their after-school programs.
I am particularly pleased with the flexibility provided in Senator
Boxer's amendment. While no school is required to participate, those
which do may use the funds for children of any age--from kindergarten
through high school. Those schools which choose to participate would
also have the flexibility to decide what sort of programs to offer. For
example, schools receiving grants could engage in mentoring activities,
tutoring or academic assistance programs, recreational activities or
technology training. So long as a school offers at least two of these
activities, it would meet the grant's eligibility requirements. Schools
could also offer drug or alcohol prevention programs, gang prevention
programs, health and nutrition counseling and job skills training.
These broad categories of activities will allow the local schools to
decide how their children spend their after-school hours while ensuring
that the children and teens are engaged in productive activities.
Vermont is fortunate to have a wide variety of after-school programs
available for children, both on and off school campuses. I have been
working to ensure this diversity of programs continues. But, I hear
again and again from parents in Vermont that we need more after-school
programs for our state's children. Senator Boxer's amendment would
ensure one piece of the puzzle is better funded--after-
[[Page S3483]]
school programs on school and public property. I plan to continue
pushing for other resources for after-school, evening and weekend
programs, including in S.10, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender
Act of 1997. As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have
been fighting hard to ensure that S.10 has dedicated funding for a
variety of crime prevention programs. Senator Boxer's amendment is a
perfect complement to these ongoing efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for a minute of my time to say
simply that Senator Coverdell criticizes my proposal because it is a
new program when he in fact is putting forward a new program. The issue
is not about creating a new program. He doesn't like this program, he
likes his.
Senator Coverdell's proposal gives the average private school
household a $37 a year benefit; if you are in public school, you fare
worse, $7 a year. And he likes the program. That is fine. But he
doesn't talk about these deleterious amendments that have made this a
very dangerous bill by canceling 20 programs that help our children
read and learn. Programs created by President Eisenhower, Senator
Javits, tried and true programs, are canceled, put in a block grant to
let the locals do what they want.
The fact is, the local districts like these programs yet this bill
seeks to eliminate them. Other programs supported by local districts
are rejected out of hand. The Senate rejects putting more teachers in
the classroom; rejects any national testing. This is a bill that has
now been amended in such a fashion it does harm to our children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I reserved that 1 minute, if the Senator will take his
time now.
Mr. COVERDELL. Please proceed.
Mrs. BOXER. All right, we will do that. I just ask the Senator, since
he has 5 minutes and I have a minute, if I feel compelled, will he give
me an additional 60 seconds to respond to his concluding remarks?
Mr. COVERDELL. I will be glad to yield a minute of my time to the
distinguished Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is a good debater, so I want to have that
opportunity.
But I also want to respond to the Senator from Arkansas. I am sorry
he is no longer in the Senate chamber. He has criticized this after-
school program because it is a new program. In actuality this is not a
new program. The after school programs that would be funded by this
amendment are going on. The local districts are doing a great job, but
they need help, and more want to do this.
The Senator from Arkansas criticizes this program yet his side of the
aisle agreed to it unanimously in the budget. We already debated this
Boxer amendment, this exact same thing, in the budget resolution. The
Senator from Arkansas didn't object to it then.
In addition the Senator from Arkansas cites a lot of programs that
could fund after school initiatives, but those programs are not
exclusively for after school; they also could fund senior citizens,
parenting skills, or employment counseling. There is no direct program
that responds to the fact that after school the crime rate soars and
doesn't stop until mom and dad get home.
Do you know how we pay for this program? By cutting the travel budget
for bureaucrats. This seems a reasonable price to pay to protect and
educate our children after school.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator she has 1
minute.
Mrs. BOXER. Do I have 1 minute remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used her minute. She has a
minute of the Senator from Georgia.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I will withhold until my
colleague completes his remarks.
Mr. COVERDELL. I assume I have somewhere in the range of 4 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes left.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the first point I want to reiterate is,
we do have to acknowledge, apart from the amendments, that the points I
made a moment ago are all in the underlying bill: Education savings
accounts for 14 million families, 20 million children. And I might
point out, those savings accounts will bring--when you use the figures
$37 and $7, you are only talking about the interest that is saved
because we didn't tax it in a given year.
When you talk about the savings accounts, you have to look at the
principal, and what happens is, when we create them, Americans do very
big things and they go out and save, over a 10-year period, $10
billion. That $10 billion--$5 billion will support students in public
schools and $5 billion will support students in private schools,
without us having to raise another dime. No taxes have to be raised, no
property tax, no income tax. This is families stepping forward with a
huge infusion of money. We are building new schools; we are helping
employees with continuing education; we are helping millions of
students with the costs of higher education.
To the amendment that the Senator has addressed, let me just say
first, the amendment permitting block grants is totally voluntary; no
one is required to do anything. It is a 3-year experiment that says if
California wants to keep the system the way it is, fine. If they would
like to experiment with the block grant, they might do that. If they
want to experiment with the grant going directly to the school
district, they might. But nothing is ordered.
Frankly, I am one of those who thinks the Federal system has become
so ensnarled that it severely constrains and restricts local
communities. We had a story here just the other day of a person--they
couldn't build new classrooms. They needed new teachers, but they had
to have the classrooms to reduce class size. Because of Federal
constraints, they couldn't get it done. I think the idea of loosening
the flexibility is good.
With regard to testing, it is very controversial. There are many of
us who believe national tests will set national curricula and that
national tests will be designed to enforce our current--could even be
designed to ratify the current crisis we have.
My only question about national testing is this. Every week I read
about the condition of our fourth graders, our eighth graders, how we
compete with the international community. I do not find a shortage in
this country of understanding the crisis we have in grades kindergarten
through high school. We know a third of the students get there and
can't read right. We know only four out of ten of the students in
inner-city schools can't pass a basic exam. We know if we take all the
schools and put them together, only 6 out of 10 can pass a basic exam.
We don't need any more testing. We need some innovation. We need some
change and reform like we are talking about. We know what is happening.
We are losing, as we come to the new century.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 seconds remaining.
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield back my 20 seconds and dedicate my final
minute to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. My colleague is very generous. I thank him. In rapid
fire, I will try to respond.
The underlying bill really does no harm. As amended, this bill does a
huge amount of harm, because it takes the National government out of
the whole issue of education for our children. It takes us backward,
away from visionaries like President Eisenhower, who said the strength
of the Nation lies in its children. The National Government, if it
truly cares about its children, should fill the gaps that are
identified by local government. And that is what is done away with in
the Gorton amendment.
Essentially, the Gorton amendment is saying to the people that
education is not important on the national level. We know if we scratch
the surface, many of our colleagues don't want a Department of
Education. That is what this is about. This takes away 75 percent of
the Department of Education's ability to at least in some way engage in
the educational programs helping children in kindergarten through grade
twelve. And to say that our children don't need any testing--you just
ask the parents if they want testing. How
[[Page S3484]]
can we talk about accountability without voluntarily testing?
So, in closing, I thank my friend for his generosity. I hope we will
support this modest bill, to bring down the crime rate and lift up our
children. It is paid for in the budget, and I look forward to a
bipartisan vote.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the
Senator from California.
I think we are going to set the amendment aside for a stacked vote. I
withdraw my motion and will make the motion at the appropriate time. We
will be moving to debate on the Bingaman amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COVERDELL. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. I just want to guarantee that we will have a vote on a
tabling motion or an up-or-down vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. We will.
Mrs. BOXER. I have the Senator's word, and I am pleased with that.
Thank you.
Unanimous Consent Agreements
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the debate on the Bingaman amendment, it be in order for Senator
Coverdell to offer a first-degree amendment regarding reading
excellence. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in
order to either amendment and, finally, that the vote occur on, or in
relation to, the Coverdell amendment prior to the vote on, or in
relation to, the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the vote on, or in relation to, the Levin second-degree amendment, if
the Levin second-degree amendment is defeated, the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of the Levin first-degree amendment, as
amended by the Ashcroft amendment, and the Levin first-degree amendment
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2298 and 2307, En Bloc
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order at this time to offer two amendments en bloc, an amendment on
behalf of Senator McCain on multilingualism and an amendment on behalf
of Senator Dorgan regarding safer schools.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the reporting of the amendments, the amendments be agreed to and the
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and that any
statements relating to these amendments appear at the appropriate place
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes
amendments numbered 2298 and 2307.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2298
(Purpose: To provide for a study of multilingualism in the United
States)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. MULTILINGUALISM STUDY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that even though all
residents of the United States should be proficient in
English, without regard to their country of birth, it is also
of vital importance to the competitiveness of the United
States that those residents be encouraged to learn other
languages.
(b) Resident of the United States Defined.--In this
section, the term ``resident of the United States'' means an
individual who resides in the United States, other than an
alien who is not lawfully present in the United States.
(c) Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States (referred to in this section as the ``Comptroller
General'') shall conduct a study of multilingualism in the
United States in accordance with this section.
(2) Requirements.--
(A) In general.--The study conducted under this section
shall ascertain--
(i) the percentage of residents in the United States who
are proficient in English and at least 1 other language;
(ii) the predominant language other than English in which
residents referred to in clause (i) are proficient;
(iii) the percentage of the residents described in clause
(i) who were born in a foreign country;
(iv) the percentage of the residents described in clause
(i) who were born in the United States;
(v) the percentage of the residents described in clause
(iv) who are second-generation residents of the United
States; and
(vi) the percentage of the residents described in clause
(iv) who are third-generation residents of the United States.
(B) Age-specific categories.--The study under this section
shall, with respect to the residents described in
subparagraph (A)(i), determine the number of those residents
in each of the following categories:
(i) Residents who have not attained the age of 12.
(ii) Residents have attained the age of 12, but have not
attained the age of 18.
(iii) Residents who have attained the age of 18, but have
not attained the age of 50.
(iv) Residents who have attained the age of 50.
(C) Federal programs.--In conducting the study under this
section, the Comptroller General shall establish a list of
each Federal program that encourages multilingualism with
respect to any category of residents described in
subparagraph (B).
(D) Comparisons.--In conducting the study under this
section, the Comptroller General shall compare the
multilingual population described in subparagraph (A) with
the multilingual populations of foreign countries--
(i) in the Western hemisphere; and
(ii) in Asia.
(d) Report.--Upon completion of the study under this
section, the Comptroller General shall prepare, and submit to
Congress, a report that contains the results of the study
conducted under this section, and such findings and
recommendations as the Comptroller General determines to be
appropriate.
Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment which
would mandate a study of multilingualism in the United States. This
amendment would direct the Comptroller General of the United States to
identify, examine and analyze the number of individuals who are
proficient in English, but are also proficient in one or more
additional languages.
I believe that we can all agree that it is imperative for everyone in
the United States to be fluent in English in order to succeed in
today's society. This is why we need to continue encouraging all
members of our society to be fluent in the English language. However, I
believe it is equally important for us to encourage all members of our
society to understand English--Plus one or more additional languages.
Currently, I am working with members of the Hispanic task force in this
effort to stress the importance of speaking English--Plus other
languages. This study of multilingualism is a practical step in our
efforts to encourage English--Plus the knowledge of many other
languages.
As I have stated, English is clearly the common language in the
United States and is an important aspect of our society and individual
success. However, it is equally important that we encourage and support
efforts by individuals to become proficient in additional languages and
broaden their opportunities for success.
I wholeheartedly applaud people who have the capability to
communicate in multiple languages. Not only do they posses valuable
language skills, but their knowledge of various languages affords them
a multitude of opportunities economically, socially, professionally and
personally.
The ability to speak one or more languages, in addition to English,
is a tremendous resource to the United States because it enhances our
competitiveness in global markets by enabling improved communication
and cross-cultural understanding while trading and conducting
international business. In addition, multilingualism enhances our
nation's diplomatic efforts and leadership role on the international
front by fostering greater communication and understanding between
nations and their people.
Foreign language skills also serve as a powerful tool for promoting
greater cross-cultural understanding between the multitude of racial
and ethnic groups in our country.
The data collected from the study required by this legislation would
enable us to identify the linguistic strengths and weaknesses in our
society. Based upon this study we would be able to develop innovate
initiatives which would
[[Page S3485]]
promote the importance of foreign language skills, while providing a
basis for expanding our nation's linguistic abilities.
The information we gather from this study will be invaluable in many
aspects of our society. It is important that we encourage and support
everybody, no matter what their age, in learning one or more languages
in addition to English, since the opportunities which exist for
individuals who can master additional languages are endless.
amendment no. 2307
(Purpose: To promote school safety)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. . SAFER SCHOOLS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Safer
Schools Act of 1998''.
(b) Amendment.--Section 14601 of the Gun-Free Schools Act
of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 8921) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
(g) ``For the purposes of this section, a weapon that has
been determined to have been brought to a school by a student
shall be admissible as evidence in any internal school
disciplinary proceeding (related to an expulsion under this
section.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 2298 and 2307) were agreed to.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I believe at this time the order of the
day is to go to the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Georgia.
Parliamentary inquiry. Is the amendment that I am proposing at the
desk, or should I send it to the desk?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator can send the amendment to the
desk.
Amendment No. 2308
(Purpose: To provide for dropout prevention)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Mr. Reid, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Bryan, proposes
an amendment numbered 2308.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered on
behalf of myself, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein and Senator Chafee.
What I would like to do is very briefly describe what the amendment is
and then yield to my colleague from Nevada for his comments. Then I
will come back and make further statements in behalf of the amendment.
The first obvious point is that there is a serious, pervasive dropout
problem in our Nation's schools. I see this in my State every day. I am
sure each Senator who has visited schools in his or her State sees the
same problem. Over half a million students drop out of school each year
before they complete high school, and they are joining a group of
almost 4 million young adults who have neither graduated nor are
getting a GED in lieu of graduation.
The second point is that dropout rates are disproportionately high
among low-income and minority students. That is just a fact, which we
will get into more in the discussion in the minutes ahead.
The third point is that the cost of this dropout crisis far exceeds
the cost of preventing it. There may be some who suggest that my
amendment, by proposing to spend as much as $150 million a year, is
going to bust the budget. I suggest that we are spending more on the
problem of unemployment, on welfare, on juvenile crime, on the
incarceration of the 4 million undereducated young people than we are
proposing in this amendment as a solution to the problem.
The fourth point is that there is no Federal funding targeted to help
middle and high schools deal with this problem today.
The amendment would allow over 2,000 of the schools with the highest
dropout rates in each State to compete for $50,000 restructuring
grants. That is what we are talking about, very small amounts of money
that would help these schools to begin the restructuring process to
deal with the dropout problem.
The fifth point is that the amendment does not add a new Federal
education program. Instead, it replaces an unfunded dropout
demonstration program from the 1994 Improving America's Schools Act.
Sixth, this amendment would provide funding to every State. It would
allow local schools to determine what dropout prevention method works
best for them. We are not dictating the course or the steps each school
should take, but we are trying to assist them in beginning to take the
steps to deal with the problem.
Finally, reducing dropout rates needs to be a bipartisan national
education goal. It was identified as such in 1989. When President Bush
met with all 50 Governors in Charlottesville, it was the second
education goal we identified: At least 90 percent of our students would
complete high school, would graduate. We have never had a serious
effort to reach that goal. It is time we did. This amendment begins to
move us in that direction.
Before I go on to any further discussion, I yield to my colleague,
Senator Reid, who has been a leader on this issue.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding, I say to my friend
from New Mexico, that I have 5 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator
from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REID. Will the Chair inform me when I have 30 seconds left?
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bryan be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I underline and underscore every word said
by my colleague from New Mexico. This is a serious problem. The little
amount of money that we want to spend on this will save inordinate
amounts of money in welfare costs, costs to our criminal justice system
and in our education system. This amendment, in my opinion, is the most
important aspect of the legislation with which we have dealt. If we are
going to do something about education, we have to slow down and, if
possible, stop the dropout rate in our schools.
High school dropouts: Mr. President, unemployment rates of high
school dropouts are more than twice those of high school graduates. The
probability of falling into poverty is three times higher for high
school dropouts than for students who have finished high school.
The median personal income of high school graduates during prime
earning years, 25 years to 54 years, is nearly twice that of high
school dropouts. That figure is startling.
The future of high school dropouts: What is the future? They may have
a job making a lot of money in lawn maintenance or working in a service
station. The median personal income of college graduates is more than
three times that of high school dropouts.
Among prisoners in the United States, 82 percent of the prisoners in
the United States never finished high school. That should send a
message to this body loud and clear.
The children of dropouts have a much greater chance of dropping out
of school.
The demographics of the State of Nevada and many Western States are
changing rapidly. In the State of Nevada, the Hispanic population is
rising very rapidly, adding a great deal to the culture of the State of
Nevada, which is named after Hispanics--Nevada, snow-cap; Las Vegas,
the meadows.
The dropout rate among Hispanic students is 30 percent compared to an
overall rate of 11 percent, about three times higher than any other
group of people. The Hispanic unemployment rate is 11.3 percent
compared to 7.3 percent for non-Hispanics.
In 1991, Mr. President, 49 percent of all persons living in Hispanic
households received some type of assistance. This is much, much higher
than any other group of people in the United States. This cries out for
doing something about dropouts, when the dropout rate is 30 percent,
three times higher than any other group.
[[Page S3486]]
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic Americans will make up
nearly 20 percent of the U.S. population by the year 2030. This bill is
not directed toward Hispanics, but Hispanics will benefit significantly
from this legislation.
Mr. President, we need to make these changes. I congratulate and
applaud the leadership of the Senator from New Mexico.
Dropouts in high school are a problem we must address. We must do it
soon. The aim of our legislation is to encourage the type of innovative
thinking that is working other places, adopt and use those programs
that work well. Each school would receive a little bit of money,
because we found it only takes a little bit to make a great deal of
difference. I ask all my colleagues to join in supporting this most
important amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from New Mexico
has 7 minutes 39 seconds remaining.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of that time
and reserve the rest so that I can use the remainder to summarize after
the opponents have spoken.
But let me just go into this a little more in depth. I appreciate the
strong support of the Senator from Nevada. What this amendment tries to
do is to begin to focus our attention as a nation on what I see as a
very, very serious problem in our educational system. And that is the
problem that many, many of our students are not ever completing their
high school education, in some cases are not completing their middle
school education. These students are leaving the schools in large
numbers, and we as a society are having to make accommodation to the
fact that we have large numbers of young uneducated people coming into
the work force.
So what we are trying to do is to begin the process of focusing
attention on it, begin the process of reversing this trend. Let me show
a few charts here, Mr. President, just to make the points.
This first chart is called ``Event Dropout Rates for Grades 10
through 12, Ages 15 through 24, By Race and Ethnicity.'' And this is
the period 1972 through October of 1995.
You can see on this chart that for the white non-Hispanic students,
although they have had the lowest annual dropout rate of any group,
that dropout rate has been increasing, not decreasing, in recent years.
So this is a problem that affects everybody.
The non-Hispanic black students--that is this green line--it has been
coming down somewhat. The general trend is down. But it also is quite
high and is not near where it should be.
Of course, the red line--which is the line that represents the
Hispanic students in our school system--it is by far the highest of
these lines and shows the seriousness of the problem. Dropout rates
have not declined in recent years. This is not a problem that is fixing
itself; this is a problem that needs additional attention. Dropout
rates are particularly adverse among the Hispanic population.
Let me show another chart here, Mr. President. You can see this is
called ``The Status Dropout Rate.'' That indicates, rather than an
annual rate, this is how many of our students have left school
essentially before they graduate. You can see that this red line--
representing the Hispanic students in our school system--it is
consistently over 30 percent. We essentially are losing a third of the
Hispanic students in our school system before they complete high school
under the present circumstance.
There was recently a report done called the ``Hispanic Dropout
Project Report, No More Excuses.'' That report makes the case very
convincingly that new strategies are needed, new efforts are needed, to
deal with this problem.
Let me show one other chart here, just because I know every Senator
here is concerned about his or her State in particular. This is a
listing of the dropout counts and annual rates for States by State,
starting with the State with the highest dropout rate. Unfortunately--
and this, I am sure, is one of the reasons that the Senator from Nevada
is so concerned about this issue--Nevada, according to this, had the
highest dropout rate in 1993-94. Next was Georgia, the manager's State,
that had an 8.7 percent dropout rate. And third was New Mexico, my own
State, with an 8 percent dropout rate. That means, every year, 8
percent of the students in the school system drop out.
So over the period of 4 years of high school and even some part of
middle school, we lose more than 30 percent in many of our schools.
These are crucial issues in my State. I run into this problem as I go
around my State talking to parents, talking to school administrators,
talking to teachers, talking to the students themselves.
It is time for the country to act. It is not enough to just say,
``This can get handled by the larger issues. We don't need to make
special efforts with regard to this. It will take care of itself. As
the general educational system improves, maybe this problem will go
away too.'' That is not an adequate answer. We need to do better than
that. The simple truth is that too many of our schools are not meeting
the academic, the vocational, or the other needs of students. Students
are leaving those schools. They are bored with the watered down,
repetitive courses, and in many cases they are alienated by the very
size of the schools.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as I indicated, I will reserve the
remainder of my time until after the opponents have spoken.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield as much of our time as is
necessary to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee who rises in
opposition to the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, please notify me at 13 minutes.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the Senator
from New Mexico. Senator Bingaman has offered an amendment which would
create a new program intended to lower dropout rates in our Nation's
schools. It does replace a program that was in existence up until 1995.
That program is no longer funded, nor was funding requested by the
President of the United States back in 1995, 1996, 1997, nor was it
requested by the Department of Education, as I understand. It is a new
program, though, and I will come back to that.
Senator Bingaman's amendment would amend title V of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to authorize this new entity, and
up to $125 million in that first year, with the objective which I
obviously share; that is, reducing dropout rates.
Secondly, the amendment, as I mentioned, authorizes $125 million for
grants in that first year and authorizes an additional $25 million for
a national clearinghouse on dropout data.
In addition, it would create an office in the Department of
Education, it would create a new office of dropout prevention, and
would also allow for the creation of a dropout czar at the Department
of Education to focus attention on this issue.
I say all of that because it is a new program not currently funded.
It is a Federal program. And that is important, because so much of the
discussion that we have undertaken over the last 3 to 4 days and that
I, as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Task Force on Education,
have reviewed over the last 6 months is that if there is one thing we
have too many Federal programs with too much overlap, and it is too
confusing and too burdensome. I think we have made great progress in
the last 2 days on this bill and in simplifying and streamlining with
some of the amendments as well.
The second point I want to come back to is that we do have a problem
today in dropout rates, but we have made huge progress, huge progress,
over the last 30 years. I have had the opportunity to go back and look
at the statistics and the data in our task force. We need to do a lot
more. I encourage all of us, and maybe we can take it back to the Labor
Committee where we can really analyze this data and see what the trends
mean.
But basically there are two points I want to make. I think we need
fewer programs, not just another program, to address problems; and, No.
2, real progress has been made in lowering the dropout rate among all
subgroups in this country, some more than others.
[[Page S3487]]
The 1997 Digest of Education Statistics, produced by the National
Center for Education Statistics on this very issue, has a chart.
Contrary to what Senator Bingaman has said, let me go back and look at
the entire 36-year period, because I think it puts it in a much better
perspective for us.
From 1960 to 1996, the dropout rate has fallen dramatically, from
27.2 percent down to 11 percent. The dropout rate over this period of
time has fallen by much more than a half--almost by two-thirds. The
current dropout rate is 11.1 percent. In fact, if we look at the data
from the last several years, we have not improved in science in the
last 30 years and we have not improved in math and we have not improved
in reading. The one area we have improved in education in this country
is lowering that dropout rate. I don't want to minimize the problem
because I agree it is a problem, but we cut it not just by a quarter,
not just by a half, but almost two-thirds, down to 11.1 percent.
In the same 1997 Digest, we learn from 1972 to 1996, look at women of
Hispanic origin, the rate has dropped from 34.9 to 28.3--still too
high. The intent of the amendment is to address the 28.3 percent, but
it is the wrong approach, another Federal program. If we look at black
men, the rate has dropped from 30.6 percent in 1967 down to 13 percent
in 1996. That is dramatic. Not by just half, but two-thirds. Currently,
it is 13.6 percent. Women of all races, the rate has dropped from 26.7
percent in 1960 to 10.9 percent in 1996. I wish we could see that much
progress made in improvement in terms of science, math, and reading
where we haven't seen any progress whatever. For men of all races, the
rate has dropped from 27.8 percent in 1960 down to 11.4 percent in
1996. So we have made huge progress over the last 30 years.
Senator Bingaman and I are both members of the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee, and much of the data I refer to was reviewed in
the Senate Budget Committee task force. I do hope we have the
opportunity, regardless of the outcome of this amendment, to go back
and ask why the Hispanic dropout rate has gotten better but not as good
as we would like and why for black men it has gotten remarkably better.
I do not fully understand that and would like to find out in committee
through hearings to see if we can address and if we can come up with an
overall strategy.
I suggest we look at creative ways to assist all of our students. We
approached that to some extent yesterday through the block grant, the
Gorton-Frist amendent yesterday, which really allows States and
localities to identify problems like this which may not be in every
locality, which are not in every locality, every school district, but
allow States and localities to identify for themselves what that
problem would be, and give them, through this block grant approach, the
flexibility to decide how, for themselves, based on their priorities,
based on their needs, they can address that specific problem and spend
those education dollars that we provide. Clearly, our current system of
complicated overlapping programs is not the answer, and therefore I
hesitate and therefore oppose having another new Federal program in
this regard.
I have spoken a number of times about findings of the task force
itself. It really comes down to having a fragmented Federal education
effort; it ends up being uncoordinated. The General Accounting Office
in our hearings presented testimony to the task force and noted how the
Federal Government does target certain populations with a variety of
Federal education programs. Again, the block grant approach through the
Gorton-Frist amendment still allows the existence of programs but you
give individual school districts or States the opportunity to use that
money as they see fit or to keep those categorical programs.
The General Accounting Office, in this chart I will show briefly on
the floor, illustrates the problem that we have today by just having
another program. This chart shows target groups served by multiple
programs and agencies. In the middle is the target group which is aimed
by the Federal Government called ``at-risk and delinquent youth.'' This
is the area that the dropout rate potential student exists. Look what
we have today. Department of Agriculture has programs, Department of
Education has programs, Department of Health and Human Services has
programs, Department of the Interior has programs, and now we want to
add yet another program.
In fact, for this ``at-risk youth'' target group, we have 59 programs
at the Department of Health and Human Services, 7 administered by the
Department of Defense, 8 by the Department of Education, 4 by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 9 by the Department of
Labor, 22 by the Department of Justice, 3 by the Department of the
Interior, 7 by the Department of Agriculture, and 8 by various other
agencies. We have 127 Federal programs right now that are directed to
at-risk and delinquent youth. We take it from 127 to 128. I think we
can't kid ourselves that by adding another new program to address this
fundamental problem, that that will be the answer.
The task force also held a hearing on January 28 called ``Federal
Education Funding: The State and Local Perspective.'' It was made clear
at the hearing that additional Federal programs, which have numerous
regulations and are costly to administer, is just simply not the best
approach. In terms of the Federal burden, the commissioner of education
for the State of Florida told the task force, using an example, that it
takes 297 State employees to oversee and administer $1 billion in
Federal funds; in contrast, only 374 employees oversee approximately $7
billion in State funds. The point being it takes almost six times as
many people to administer a Federal dollar as a State dollar.
For some reason, and it has been reflected on the floor over the last
2 days, we had a problematic reluctance to ask the question, ``What
works, what doesn't work,'' and let us promote what works. I have been
dismayed through the whole process of the last several months looking
at education, looking at the sort of chart that you just saw where we
have 127 programs already designed to look at that at-risk youth. Is
128 going to make a difference? I think not.
In summary, if you step away from it, we have a too-complicated
Federal effort today. We don't need to have one more program in this
already incoherent structure. No. 2, we have data to show that we have
made, since 1960, dramatic progress, improvements in the dropout rates.
Still, we have a problem. Still we need to address it. I argue that the
best place to address that instead of right now on the floor where very
few people have this data is in a committee, where you can debate it,
look at the data, analyze it, and say why is one group doing better and
one is not.
Third, the Senate did agree yesterday to the Gorton-Frist block grant
approach which gives the opportunity for a State or a locality to
obtain the same amount of funds and use those funds to address the
specific problem--whether it is the dropout rate or whether it is
technology or whether it is more books, they get to choose.
For these three reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose and defeat
Senator Bingaman's amendment. I look forward to working with him in the
Labor Committee to address the issue that he has brought to the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senators
Bingaman and Reid today and I thank them for including my suggestions
to be more explicit in how school districts use funds authorized for
dropout prevention.
At my suggestion, Senators Bingaman and Reid added several specific
strategies to the activities authorized by their original amendment.
Under the original Bingaman-Reid amendment, funds would be authorized
as grants to states and states would in turn award grants to public
middle and secondary schools for activities like professional
development and planning and research.
Under the Feinstein amendment, schools could also use grants for
remedial education; reducing pupil-teacher ratios; efforts to help
students meet achievement standards, such as tutoring or enrichment
programs; and counseling for at-risk students.
I believe that the additions I suggested provide some concrete
guidance to the states and represent specific, targeted strategies
aimed at the underlying causes of the dropout problem.
[[Page S3488]]
Students at risk of dropping out need extra help and attention, such
as smaller classes, counseling, and after-school academic programs and
summer school. They require more than the normal school program, but
schools are strapped as it is and this new ``injection'' of funding can
help schools provide these extra services.
For example, limited English speaking proficiency is a major risk
factor for dropping out school, especially for Latino children,
according to the General Accounting Office in their July 1994 report.
For Latino students born in the U.S., the dropout rate is 18 percent.
For newly immigrated Latino students, the dropout rate is 44 percent.
For African-American students the dropout rate is 12 percent and for
Anglo students it is 9 percent, according to the National Center for
Education Statistics. Nearly one in five Latinos between ages 16 and 24
leaves school without a diploma [Hispanic Dropout Project, U.S.
Department of Education, February 1998]. Whatever the numbers, in my
view, one percent is too high for any group. Everyone needs a solid
education.
Other risk factors for dropping out are poverty, pregnancy,
motherhood, disruptive behavior, academic failure, and lack of skills,
said the General Accounting Office and the National Center for
Education Statistics.
Dropping out of school can begin a downward spiral to delinquency,
unemployment, disillusionment, drug and alcohol abuse and crime.
Dropping out forecloses opportunities for a lifetime--having children
who are poor and uneducated; lack of job skills; civic breakdown.
Public schools need help and the added resources of this amendment in
an effort to bring concentrated attention to at-risk students and to
prevent the downward plunge that can begin when children drop out of
school. We should not give up on these children but give them extra
help to stay in school. This amendment can provide some help and I urge
the Senate to adopt it.
Mr. COVERDELL. How much time is remaining on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 3 minutes 27 seconds
remaining and the opponents have 2 minutes 40 seconds remaining.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to have the opportunity to summarize my
arguments at the end. If the opponents would go ahead and complete
their opposition, I prefer that.
Mr. COVERDELL. I think this would be the appropriate time for you to
do that and we will yield back and proceed.
Mr. BINGAMAN. You are planning to yield back your time?
Mr. COVERDELL. Is there anything further from the Senator from
Tennessee?
Mr. FRIST. I reserve 30 seconds, but otherwise I have nothing
further.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first just respond to a couple of
points that were made by the Senator from Tennessee. He says we made
huge progress. That is not what the people in my State believe. That is
not what the school administrators and students and parents in my State
believe.
The Department of Education report that just came out this year
indicates their conclusion is that there has been no overall progress
in lowering dropout rates during the last 10 years. That is the decade
during which we were supposed to be moving up to 90 percent of all of
our students completing high school before they left school.
In 1989, when the Governors and President Bush met in
Charlottesville, the goal was set at 90 percent. It was 86 percent
then. It is today 86 percent, according to the National Education Goals
Panel. In the last 10 years there has been no progress, in spite of the
fact that we have had this national goal.
Another part of the goal, in addition to getting 90 percent of our
students to complete high school, was to eliminate the disparity in the
different groups in our society so that you didn't have such a large
dropout problem among one group--in this case, the Hispanic students--
and such a disparity between the problem with that group and other
groups. Clearly, those disparities have not been eliminated. The
problem is very much with us. It needs attention, and it is every bit
as serious now as it was in 1989 when we established the national goal
of getting to 90 percent.
The Senator from Tennessee says we have too many programs already. I
point out that my friend and colleague from Georgia is getting ready to
offer another proposal here. We seem to have a double standard. When
the proposed new programs are brought up on that side of the aisle,
they are acceptable; when they are brought up on our side of the aisle,
there are too many programs. The reality is that there are no
programs--there is no Federal money focused on dealing with this
problem of dropout prevention. That is one reason we have never dealt
with it. It is not on the national agenda, it is not on the agenda of
the Department of Education, and, frankly, it is not on the agenda of
most of our States and school districts, and it needs to be.
Mr. President, if we are going to make progress on this, at some
stage we are going to have to quit coming up with excuses. The title of
a report that came out this year was ``No More Excuses.'' To my mind,
that sums it up well. Let's get on with dealing with this problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield back the opponent's time. I
believe that would move us to the next order of business. This
amendment would be set aside for the stacked votes later this
afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is correct. The
amendment is set aside.
Amendment No. 2309
(Purpose: To provide for reading excellence)
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an
amendment numbered 2309.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. 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. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as we have noted throughout this
debate, we have a lot of Americans who are exceedingly deficient in
reading. When more than 40 million Americans cannot read a phone book,
a menu, or the directions on a medicine bottle, and only 4 out of 10
third graders can read at grade level or above, new solutions are
needed--I might add, not programs, but solutions.
This amendment, based on Senate bill 1596, the Coverdell-Gorton
Reading Excellence Act, will help children learn to read. The reading
excellence amendment would focus on training teachers to teach reading.
Fewer than 10 percent of our teachers have received formal instruction
on how to teach reading.
My amendment would also send 95 percent of the funds associated with
it directly to the classroom, which I know the Chair would applaud, as
he has been the author of the money-to-the-classroom legislation. It
requires that funds be spent on research-based reading instruction,
methods with proven track records. It provides extra tutorial
assistance for at-risk children, as well as literacy assistance for
parents, so they can be their children's first and most important
teacher.
It is already funded. That is unique here. Two hundred and ten
million dollars were set aside in the fiscal year 1998 Labor-HHS
appropriations bill specifically for literacy work. However, this is
contingent on the passage of an authorization bill by July 1, 1998. The
House has already acted and passed a Reading Excellence Act by voice
vote on November 8, 1997.
President Clinton endorsed the Reading Excellence Act in his radio
address February 28, 1998, and has called on the Senate to act. This
amendment is a response to that call. I will read the actual statement
on behalf of the President of the United States:
But we need Congress' help to meet this goal.
The goal is that we are on track to give extra reading help to 3
million children at risk of falling behind.
He says:
But we need Congress' help to meet this goal. This past
November, the House of Representatives voted with bipartisan
support to promote literacy efforts in the home, the
[[Page S3489]]
school, the community. Legislation with these goals is now
awaiting action in the Senate----
Not anymore--
which means $210 million in targeted assistance is now on
hold in Washington, not at work in our communities.
We are getting ready to end that.
So today I call on the Senate to pass this legislation
without delay. We need it. Our children need it.
That was the address of the President of the United States to the
Nation on February 28, 1998. This is the answer to the call. The
research is overwhelming. Most recently, the National Research Council,
at the request of the Department of Education, released a report
calling for a direct, systemic approach to teaching so that children
can learn to connect the letters of words to the sounds they represent.
Our amendment does this by requiring that proven scientific methods be
used, ensuring that 95 percent of the funds reach the classroom, and
providing teachers with the skills to help our children.
We should seize this opportunity, as the President requested, to put
our children first, which, I might add, is the genesis of this whole
underlying proposal: Children first, system second. We have been
fighting this system a long time, and we have bad numbers. It is time
that we put the kids first. This amendment is in complete sync with the
nature of the underlying bill and does just that. We know you can't
have a free population, Mr. President, if it is uneducated. It denies
them the rights and privileges of American citizenship. If you can't
read a phone book or a medicine bottle, you can't get a job. If you
can't get a job, you can't take care of yourself, you lose your
dignity, you are robbed of everything that America is all about.
Mr. President, on April 17, 1998, I received a letter that was signed
by Jim Barksdale, president and CEO of Netscape Communications; Carol
Bartz, chairman of Autodesk; John Chambers, president of Cisco Systems;
Eric Benhamou, president of 3COM; Floyd Kramme, a partner at Kleiner,
Perkins, Caufield and Byers; and John Young, retired president and CEO
of Hewlett-Packard.
It says a lot of good things about what we are trying to do here
today, but the last paragraph is particularly poignant:
In our respective businesses, we are creating thousands of
jobs that our Nation's education system is not preparing
youths to fill. The 21st century economy will depend on one
resource more than any other--qualified people--and dominance
of the world economy in the next century will shift to the
nation that best educates its population. We are grateful
that the Senate Republican leadership understands the
seriousness of this challenge.
Mr. President, I can't think of a more fitting concluding amendment
to the debate than the Reading Excellence Act. People have to be
functional in our society. This amendment puts kids first. This
amendment helps American teachers to do this job. This amendment has
been passed by the House. This amendment has been called on for
enactment by the President of the United States and, through this
amendment, the leadership of the Senate. I hope that our colleagues on
both sides of the aisle in a continuing bipartisan spirit at the
appropriate time will vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for those who may be in opposition, we
have some time, as I understand it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am not sure that I qualify for being in
opposition because I will urge our colleagues to support this
amendment. I want to commend the Senator for giving some focus and
attention on the floor of the Senate to the issues of literacy and
literacy training.
On next Tuesday in our Human Resources Committee, Senator Jeffords
will be having a hearing on our literacy legislation. It is his hope
and certainly all of ours in the committee that we will pass out a
strong, bipartisan proposal that will incorporate a number of the ideas
that are included in the Coverdell amendment and a number of the ideas
that have been included in President Clinton's literacy proposal of a
little over a year ago. As we all know, now that the President has
asked the colleges of this country in the work-study program for those
young people to devote time for literacy training, I take pride that
our Massachusetts colleges are No. 2, with California being No. 1, in
the number of colleges where the young people who are benefiting from
the work-study program are actually involved in tutorial work. We have
tried to get every one of the colleges in our State--there are 126--to
be involved in that tutorial work.
I think, the fact that this afternoon we are focusing on the issue of
literacy, hopefully we will pave the way for a bipartisan effort and
for an outcome that will result in our ability to utilize the $250
million which have been designated for literacy training as a part of
the budget of last year and was worked out in a bipartisan way. We may
have had differences on the number of the education issues that we have
been debating in the past days, but I certainly hope that we can in
these next very, very few weeks have legislation out here that will
have a responsible literacy initiative.
Mr. President, we know that the Academy of Sciences has recommended a
modality for the development of literacy programs. If we take the
Coverdell proposal, we will find it quite prescriptive in relationship
to the range of initiatives that have been recommended by the Academy
of Sciences that provide greater flexibility. How we eventually are
going to come out on that issue remains to be seen. But the strong
emphasis on the teachers that they be well trained to teach is
something that we all would have common agreement on. The idea of the
role of the tutors under the President's program is an important role.
I think under the Coverdell proposal we find that feature of it,
hopefully, would be strengthened.
I think there is probably some difference in this body about the
administration of the program. Under the Coverdell proposal, you set up
a whole new bureaucracy effectively with your partnership program
rather than working with the State programs. It is quite prescriptive
in the naming of a number of members that will serve on various boards.
You have a number of States now that are doing some very, very
important work. This would be a circumstance where I hope that the
program would work through the State agencies that are in the Coverdell
proposal.
I also believe that you have particular features in here where you
have the devoting of a good deal of money for assistance grants for
tutors. I think most of those involved in literacy training feel that
having a school-based system is a better use and a more effective use
of the funds.
Mr. President, I hope that at the time we address this issue Members
will vote in favor of the Coverdell amendment. Then we will have an
opportunity to vote after in terms of the Bingaman and Reid proposal. I
hope that we will vote in favor of that as well.
I think the President's proposal and ones which will be advanced in
our Human Resources Committee will give greater emphasis to volunteers
and to tutors than would necessarily be the case in the Coverdell
proposal.
We have under the leadership of our colleague and friend, Senator
Jeffords, the Everyone Wins Program, which is a reading program which a
number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been involved
in at the Brent School on the Hill. We have good attendance from a
number of our Members here where they go over and read each week to
students. I think the kind of flexibility provided in the President's
program as well as the kind of support for a number of school-based
systems has some additional credibility. I hope that we will support
it.
I commend the Senator for giving focus and attention. I want to
pledge to the Senator from Georgia, as well as to our other colleagues,
that we will certainly work every way that we possibly can, those of us
on the Education and Human Resources Committee, to work under the
leadership of Senator Jeffords who has really been a strong, strong
leader on the issues of literacy long before many others in this body,
and hopefully we will have a chance to all be together and join in
something that can pass and be successful and
[[Page S3490]]
really move us towards a country that has a real commitment towards
literacy.
It is interesting that, if you go back into the history of our
country, in the early days of this Nation at the time of the birth of
the Republic we had a much higher rate of literacy than we have today.
That is rather surprising to many, many people. The reason was because
of the reading of the Bible, because we had church-related efforts for
literacy in every community across the country in order that children
were going to be able to read the Bible. We had much higher degrees of
literacy at other times in our history than we have at the present
time. That is one of the areas where we have slipped. I think we need
to call for focus, attention, energy, and I think some resources to
really galvanize the sense of voluntarism, which I believe is out
there, in an effective way to really make a dramatic impact on reducing
illiteracy in the country.
I hope our colleagues will support that amendment. I commend him for
bringing it. I pledge that we will try to work to find ways to get a
meaningful program.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, How much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia controls 6 minutes 59
seconds.
Mr. COVERDELL. And they have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 7 minutes 8 seconds
remaining.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back here in
just a minute so that we might proceed to a unanimous consent request
to clarify for the Senate where we might head from here.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his remarks. As he has
noted, there are some differences remaining, but I pledge to work with
the Senator as we move forward on this amendment. There is still the
conference. Maybe there are other differences that we might deal with
even at that time. But I do appreciate the Senator's words in support
of the amendment, and I am glad we are in a situation here where we
can, by and large, respond to the President. I think we would both
agree at least on this point that there is nothing more important or no
more important skill than American citizens having the capacity to
read. Again, I appreciate very much the genuine remarks of the Senator
from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the time on our side so
that I might proceed to a unanimous consent request if that is
agreeable.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take one moment. I hope we
can move forward. We may have a number of differences--probably will--
in the conference, but this is an area where we really ought to try to
get the best ideas that all of our Members have and then move it
forward.
I look forward to working with the Senator from Georgia on that. I
know I speak for all of the Members on our side on the Labor and Human
Resources Committee. No matter how the underlying legislation comes
out, I will look forward to working with the Senator from Georgia and
others to make sure that we are going to get an effective bill. I am
prepared to yield back the remaining time that I have.
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield back the time we have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded.
Mr. COVERDELL. We have now debated all outstanding amendments. I know
that may be hard to believe by anybody listening. I ask unanimous
consent that this next voting sequence occur beginning at 2:15, with no
additional amendments in order to the sequenced amendments and with 2
minutes of debate between each vote for explanation. I further ask that
at the conclusion of the amendment debate Senator Byrd be recognized
for up to 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the voting series will be as follows:
the Levin amendment regarding vocational education, the Boxer amendment
regarding after-school programs, the Coverdell amendment regarding
reading and excellence we have just concluded, and the Bingaman
amendment regarding dropout prevention. It is my hope that following
the voting series the Senate could quickly move to third reading and a
final vote on the Coverdell A+ education bill. I thank all of my
colleagues for their continued cooperation and support.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I intend to vote for this bill. Some
amendments have been adopted, however, with which I do not agree, and I
would prefer that they had not been adopted. But that was the Senate's
will. Even so, I think this is a new approach and it is entitled to be
tested. So I am going to support this legislation for that reason.
Mr. President, the Bible tells us that Solomon prayed for wisdom and
knowledge. He did not pray for riches. He did not pray for honor. He
did not pray for the life of his enemies. He asked the Creator for
knowledge and wisdom, and perhaps we in the Senate should do the same.
Mr. President, I am very concerned by our Nation's failure to produce
better students despite the billions of Federal dollars appropriated
every year for various programs intended to aid and improve education.
To put it simply, the sums of money invested in our Nation's education
system continue to grow each year and, yet, the quality of our Nation's
students does not keep pace.
Several Senators have championed efforts to improve the dilapidated
state of our Nation's school buildings, and I commend them for their
leadership. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), over
fourteen million students attend schools in need of major renovations,
and I am concerned by this figure. Then, why, my colleagues may ask,
have I chosen to vote against an initiative to use Federal funds for
construction of our Nation's school buildings? It is not because I do
not recognize the benefits or the need for better school facilities--I
certainly do. The GAO has estimated that the total bill for addressing
this problem nationally tops $100 billion. However, I have reservations
about the administration's approach to school repair and construction,
which may be more appropriate for better-heeled school districts than
are to be found in West Virginia and other rural States. Many poor
districts do not have the ability to repay any loan, even an interest-
free loan.
We are right to be concerned about dilapidated school buildings in
this Nation. However, Mr. President, I believe that before the Federal
Government embarks upon the new mission of providing massive amounts--
and they will be massive amounts--of scarce Federal dollars for school
construction, we should just step back and take a fresh look at why our
students are not performing well scholastically. Is it due to aging
school buildings? No. Reasons much more fundamental than aging school
buildings underlie the poor academic performance by American students.
It is these problems which must be addressed.
Senators stand on this Floor and we argue about the benefits of tax
credits for education, we argue about funds for aging schools, we argue
about funds for private schools versus funds for public schools. Yet, I
tell you that I believe we are all just talking past each other and
past the problem. The problem is rather clear. It has two major
components. The problem with education in America has, as its root, (1)
the quality of our teachers, and (2) the quality of what they are
teaching.
We have many good teachers and many of us owe more than we can ever
pay to our good teachers. I had dedicated teachers when I was a child.
They didn't get paid much back in those days. We came through the Great
Depression. But they were dedicated. They loved the children that they
taught and they inspired us to excel. And a good teacher can do that,
can inspire his or her students to excel, to try harder, to work
harder, and strive to be at the head of the class.
[[Page S3491]]
According to the Third International Math and Science Study, released
on February 24 of this year, ``U.S. 12th graders outperformed only two
(Cyprus and South Africa) of the 21 participating countries in math and
science.'' This is deplorable, absolutely deplorable.
Why is it that from 1993 to 1998, education spending has increased by
25 percent, and at the same time, results from the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) rank U.S. high school seniors
among the worst participants in the areas of math and science? Why is
that? Why is it that in all three content areas of advanced
mathematics, U.S. advanced mathematics students' performance was among
the lowest of the twenty-one participating nations? It is not because
of lack of money.
James A. Garfield, one of the Presidents, said with regard to the
value of a true teacher: ``Give me a log hut, with only a simple bench,
Mark Hopkins on one end and I on the other, and you may have all the
buildings, apparatus and libraries without him.'' He wasn't talking
about massive buildings, impressive halls and corridors. So why is it?
Why is it that in all three content areas, as I say, of advanced math,
U.S. advanced--the best--math students' performance was among the
lowest of the 21 participating nations? These are supposed to be our
Nation's stellar students, our Nation's best students. This is not to
say that all our students fall short. We have some excellent students.
We have some good schools.
I am 100 percent for education. In all my life I have endeavored to
press to improve myself. I wanted to start at the beginning, start with
myself, improve myself. And I think I have--my colleagues know that. I
also wanted to help others. So, in 1969, almost 30 years ago, I started
a program in West Virginia to reward the high school valedictorians.
And I started a program that is referred to as the Robert C. Byrd
Scholastic Recognition Fund. When I began it, I began it with money out
of my own pocket. In the beginning, a $25 savings bond was presented to
each high school valedictorian in the State of West Virginia. That was
in 1969. After a while, I established a trust fund for purchasing the
savings bonds, which, in recent years, have been $50 bonds. I wanted to
reward students--not the athletes, they get their rewards--but the
students who work hard to excel in reading and in mathematics and
algebra and geometry and music and so on, encourage those students to
excel and to recognize them for excellence. As I say, we recognize the
great athletes. We don't recognize the best spellers. Often I hear my
colleagues talk about their State's No. 1 standing in football teams
and so on. The question that occurs to me is how well can they spell?
How well can they add and subtract and multiply and divide? How well
can they read? That is what we need to reward--the children who are in
the libraries and in the laboratories and who are working hard to
improve themselves, to get an education.
So I am 100 percent for education but I want to have some confidence,
more than I presently have, that my vote to spend the hard-earned
dollars of taxpayers will produce a return to merit that investment. I
have been voting for Federal aid to education for decades--not just
years, for decades--since 1965, to be exact. That was the year in which
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed as well as the
Higher Education Act. I have been supporting those acts.
But, we still seem to be losing the battle against mediocrity. I do
not want to vote against spending for education. But, Mr. President,
when do we admit that we are doing poorly, and try something new? It is
glaringly apparent from the results of the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and other similar studies that
increased education funding does not necessarily translate--does not
necessarily translate--into higher student achievement levels. An even
more recent study, conducted by the Fordham Foundation, a private
organization committed to quality-based reform of elementary and
secondary education, indicates the low quality of state standards in
math and science. In mathematics, the Nation flunks, with only three
States out of 50 receiving a grade of an ``A'', and just nine others a
grade of ``B''. In science, the United States is just mediocre, if we
can call it that, with nine States failing and seven earning ``D's''.
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation found that our schools are also
doing a pretty dismal job of teaching history and geography. I quote
from the foreword of the report on history: ``. . . the vast majority
of young Americans are attending school in states that do not consider
the study of history to be especially important.''
Now think of that.
``. . .the vast majority of young Americans are attending schools in
states that do not consider the study of history to be especially
important.''
Napoleon said: ``Let my son often read and reflect on history; this
is the only true philosophy.'' That was Napoleon.
``No doubt some children are learning lots of solid history from
excellent teachers in fine schools. Their good fortune, however,
appears to be serendipitous. State standards rarely constitute a
ceiling on what can be taught and learned. But it's not unreasonable to
view them as the floor below which no child or school should fall . . .
when it comes to history, most states have placed that floor where the
sub-basement ought to be . . . in only a few instances is history
itself the focus of the state academic standards that pertain to it. In
most jurisdictions, history remains mired in a curricular swamp called
`social studies,' . . . ''
Social studies is all right. I don't have any quarrel with social
studies, but let's also have history. Let's don't substitute social
studies for history. There is no substitute for history.
History, of all things, is not thought to be important enough in many
of our states to be taught as a separate subject, and that is most
unfortunate.
Mr. President, merely continuing along this same path of
proliferating education programs and investing more and more Federal
dollars into our Nation's education system will not solve the problem
of improving the quality of our Nation's students.
I congratulate our colleagues who work diligently on their committees
to bring bills to the floor and manage the bills, who are highly
dedicated to serving the students of the Nation and to improving the
schools of the Nation and to getting better teachers. I congratulate my
colleagues for their efforts. They, too, must become discouraged.
On a fundamental level, however, there is something askew with the
way we are approaching education in this Nation.
I started out in a little two-room schoolhouse along about 1923, when
we did not have hand calculators. Lord, have mercy--calculators? We did
not have them. We did not have computers or other high technology. We
did not have much money for supplies, just the bare essentials. We got
by with spring water. We had only one bucket in the school room. A two-
room school; two buckets in the school. I was glad when the teacher
chose me from time to time to go with another lad across the hill to
the spring to bring back the bucket of water. We all drank out of the
same bucket and out of the same dipper.
We didn't have any indoor plumbing. We had an outhouse--a couple of
them--and we didn't have electricity. When the storms came, we had to
light a candle or a kerosene lamp. So I do know something about so-
called ``difficult'' conditions. I am one of those children who started
out with the bottom two or three rungs of the ladder gone; they were
missing.
In those days, mathematics was about rules, memorized procedures,
memorized multiplication tables and other methodical tables. Science
was stern stuff. History was about dates and heroes. That is where many
of us who went to school in the mountains and hollows of West Virginia
learned about our heroes, the people we wanted to be like.
There is where we learned about Nathanael Greene, one of Washington's
top generals, perhaps his top one. Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox;
Daniel Morgan; Nathan Hale, who died on September 22, 1776, because he
had been asked by George Washington to go behind the British lines and
to draw pictures of the breastworks and other military excavations, and
so on. Hale was discovered the night before he was
[[Page S3492]]
about to return. He had these drawings in his pockets. The next
morning, he was executed.
He was asked if he had anything he would like to say. He had already
asked for a Bible and a chaplain and had been denied both of those. He
asked if he had any statement. He said, ``I only regret that I have but
one life to lose for my country.''
So there in our history books is where we children first learned
about American heroes, our heroes.
History was about dates and heroes. And with these basics, the United
States became a mighty industrial power, a leader in medicine, and a
winner of world wars. But, somewhere along the line, we seem to have
gotten off the track. Today, our students have algebra textbooks that
include discussions of chili recipes and hot pepper varieties. I made a
speech on this floor a year or so ago about this and brought the
particular so-called algebra book with me. And these textbooks do not
even begin to define an algebraic expression until page 107--107 in
this particular book, so it is no wonder that our students do not fare
better on international tests such as the TIMSS!
On Friday, March 20, I noted an article on the front page of the
Washington Post, which reported a new trend among teachers to teach
without the benefit of textbooks. The article discussed how teachers
are increasingly relying on the Internet or on materials that they
prepare themselves, and spurning the traditional student textbook. Now,
what is the reason for this phenomenon? I quote from the Post piece,
``Scientific knowledge is expanding so rapidly that many textbooks are
outdated only a few years after they are published. Recent political
disputes''--get this; this is the Washington Post talking--``Recent
political disputes over textbook content have made publishers wary of
offending any interest group, and the result is that the books have
become bland and shallow, some teachers complain. . . . Some teachers
even cite a decline in children's reading skills as a rationale for
abandoning the tomes.''
Mr. President, imagine that. Our kids can't read well enough to
effectively digest a textbook. And furthermore, textbooks have become
such worthless amalgams of touchy-feely, politically correct twaddle,
that many teachers are casting them aside in favor of doing the extra
work to prepare material themselves.
Mr. President, if we ever hope to improve the quality of students in
this country, it is essential that we recultivate an interest in
education for its own sake--education for education's sake--not only in
our Nation's children, but also in their parents. Our Nation's ailing
education system is, in part, influenced by the parents of those
children, and of young adults attending high school and college.
Parents need to take an active role in their children's education.
Without parental involvement, dumbed-down textbooks will continue to
creep into the local school systems, and it will be our children and
our grandchildren who suffer.
I hope that we do not try to tell the American people that fighting
over school vouchers or the size of an education IRA, or even the
repair of our school buildings will solve the problem of the often
shallow, substandard, low quality education we are offering our kids
these days. I strongly suspect that our students' poor performance as
scholars has a lot more to do with the general dissolution of the
family structure, loss of respect for authority, rampant alcohol and
drug use by students even in the lower grades, and a pervasive change
in attitudes about the value of discipline, than it does with
dilapidated school buildings.
We can rebuild all the school buildings that we want, and, yes, I
agree that we undoubtedly need to modernize and to rebuild some of
these structures, but let no one believe that school construction will
solve what is wrong with education in this country today. The problems
assail us from many directions. How can our teachers teach if they have
to create their own textbooks as well as attempt to maintain
discipline, and please every interest group? When one considers the
meager salaries of teachers generally, and having to struggle against
the backdrop of a society that glorifies athletics and the attainment
of any type of celebrity far more than it cares about scholarship, it
is easy to see why good teachers are increasingly hard to come by. How
can mundane scholarship, which requires commitment and hard work on the
part of the student, compete with sensational television and movies
that offer brutal murder, steamy sex, and filthy language as standard
daily fare for our young people? What in the world has happened to a
society that is intent on rewriting every single discipline from
algebra to geometry to history to be sure that those essential basic
subjects are, first and foremost, absolutely politically correct? It
has taken us over lock, stock and barrel. We are pulverizing essential
knowledge and facts to pulp, easily digested by even the laziest and
most undisciplined brains--baby pablum for the mind.
So, while we rage on here today about which political party will
capture the education issue, let us remember that we are only skimming
the surface with any and all of these well-intentioned solutions.
There is something much, much more fundamentally wrong with education
in America today than a shortage of funding. The public school system
had better shape up, or else public support for it is going to
completely erode. And I, for one, am willing to try some new
approaches--new approaches--anything that may help our most precious
resource.
The Democratic party is not our most precious resource. The
Republican party is not our most precious resource in this country. Our
children are our most precious resource--our kids. And so I am willing
to try some new approaches to achieve the kind of scholastic excellence
that our children need and deserve.
My only hope is that someday--someday--in some effective manner, we
will find the courage and the practical means to address what amounts
to educational child abuse in this Nation in a bipartisan fashion.
It should not make any difference whether the right approach is
Democratic or Republican. We ought to forget that stuff. That is mere
junk partisanship. What matters is the education of our children.
There is no room for mere political jousting on a matter of such
momentous importance to our people and to our Nation. And that is
exactly what the country is witnessing in Washington with regard to the
education debate--political jousting.
Mr. President, with U.S. high school seniors ranking 19th out of the
21 countries in mathematics, and 16th out of 21 countries in science,
we must devote greater attention to stimulating excellence in
education. Getting back to the basics is the obvious starting point,
and we better start now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Under the previous order, there
are 2 minutes of debate evenly divided.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Parliamentary inquiry. First, I think it has to be
said that was a startling speech by the Senator from West Virginia that
cuts to the core. I do not think much else needs to be said.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now moving, by
previous order, to the votes. The first vote will occur on the Levin
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. COVERDELL. Two minutes equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes equally divided.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me thank the Senator from West Virginia for his
comments.
Amendment No. 2303 to Amendment No. 2299
Mr. LEVIN. The demands that are being made on teachers, as a matter
of fact, are what is behind my amendment, which is to provide a credit
to teachers who now have all these new technologies that are brought
into the schools to help those teachers go back to learn how to utilize
those technologies, should they choose to do so. These demands are
huge. We are putting a fortune into computers, software and connectors
to Internet and everything else, but we are only putting pennies into
the professional development of our teachers.
This amendment would provide a 50 percent tax credit for the cost
when
[[Page S3493]]
those teachers go back for that training. It pays for it by not
allowing the use of this new IRA in the K through 12 area because it is
so skewed against public schools. That is the main point here. It keeps
the IRA increase for college education, and it keeps other parts of
this bill. But what it says is that withdrawals will not be permitted
in the K through 12 grades because of the manner in which most of the
money goes to private-school families, although they represent only 10
percent of the families with children in schools.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the Levin amendment as it takes
away the ability of parents to use educational IRAs to pay for K
through 12 school expenses. It runs contrary to the whole purpose of
the Coverdell bill, which is to allow parents greater resources to meet
the educational needs of their young children.
Instead, Senator Levin wants to take these resources and expand the
lifetime learning credit from 20 percent to 50 percent for those
teachers who participate in technology training. A 20 percent lifetime
learning credit is already available to teachers for continuing
education, just as it is for members of other professionals. Let me
remind my colleagues that the Coverdell bill already contains a
provision that allows teachers to receive tax-free technology training
provided by their employer, the school.
We all agree that it is vitally important for teachers to be
proficient in the use of technology in the classroom, but this is not
the way to do it. This amendment takes the resources of an expanded IRA
from our families, our children, and creates a more distorted and
complex learning credit.
For these reasons, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to
vote against it.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment offered
by the Senator from Michigan, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Michigan.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
NAYS--39
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2303) was agreed
to.
Amendment No. 2299, As Amended
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment
numbered 2299, as previously amended, is agreed to and the motion to
reconsider that action is laid on the table.
The amendment (No. 2299), as amended, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2306
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, evenly
divided, on amendment No. 2306.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
remaining votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California is recognized.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How many votes are we
having?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three additional votes.
The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Three weeks ago, my after-school bill was included in the budget
agreed to by the Senate. It passed unanimously. Now what we are doing
is authorizing the after-school program. It is paid for by cutting
Government travel.
My friends, there is absolutely no national after-school grant
program today. The after school program I am proposing today will have
total local control. Community organizations and businesses will be
brought into school buildings that now get padlocked at 3 p.m. when the
juvenile crime rate goes up. That is why 170 of the Nation's leading
police officers, sheriffs, and prosecutors endorsed after-school
programs, so we can lift up our children and raise their academic
performance, and keep them out of trouble. We cut Government travel to
pay for this program and use school buildings that are lying fallow.
I hope we will have a strong bipartisan vote for this amendment.
Thank you.
Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, this is an old formula to identify a
problem and then you create a new Federal program that might solve it.
There is a problem. There is a problem with after-school care. The
solution is not to create yet another Federal program. We already have
four existing programs that allow for after-school care. One of the
problems with this amendment, or this program, would be that it would
be school-based, school-run, and, therefore, prohibit scores of
organizations like the YMCA that are currently providing for after-
school care. They would be excluded entirely. There are 19 existing
Federal programs that provide tutoring and mentoring for students on a
one-on-one basis. So it is simply unnecessary to start a new Federal
program at a price tag of $250 million. I ask my colleagues to oppose
this amendment.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment of the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--51
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The amendment (No. 2306) was rejected.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
[[Page S3494]]
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2309
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The question is now on
amendment No. 2309, offered by Mr. Coverdell. The Senator from Georgia
is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, may we have order in the Chamber?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from
Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, this is the reading excellence
amendment. It is designed to attack the reading deficiency. We have 40
million Americans who could not read a phone book or a medicine label.
The President of the United States called for this initiative to be
adopted by the Senate. Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts spoke on
behalf of the amendment. In deference to time, it is my understanding
both sides will be agreeable to a voice vote, which I will call for
after we have heard from the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from
Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to just commend Senator Coverdell
for focusing on the issue of literacy. As we know, President Clinton
advanced a literacy program in 1996. Our colleague, Senator Jeffords,
has been having the hearings on this literacy issue in his committee
and has been a leader on literacy issues--child literacy, family
literacy, and adult literacy programs. I am very hopeful we will have a
good bill that will be strong and bipartisan in the very near future.
So I hope everyone will support this program.
I want to just mention quickly the concern that I have is that it is
too prescriptive in terms of how it develops the programs. The Academy
of Sciences has outlined a series of ways of doing it. I think we ought
to consider that. It establishes a new State bureaucracy. I think we
ought to build on the States. The tutorial programs are not school
based, and I think they would be stronger if they were.
These are important issues, but what I think is enormously
encouraging is that we have strong, bipartisan commitment to try to
work out in the very near future a strong bipartisan literacy program.
I commend Senator Coverdell for developing this amendment and his
strong commitment to work with all of us. We look forward to working
with him to get a good, strong bill.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. My
understanding is that the Chair is prepared to call for a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2309.
The amendment (No. 2309) was agreed to.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2308
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, am I correct that the pending business
is the vote on the Bingaman amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment tries to begin to focus
national attention and some resources on the problem of students who
drop out of school before they complete high school.
In 1989, when President Bush and the 50 Governors met and set some
national education goals for the country, one of those goals was that
we would have at least 90 percent of our students complete high school
before they left school. At that time, 86 percent of our students were
completing high school before they left. Today, it continues to be 86
percent. We have done absolutely nothing to reach this very important
national goal.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order? It is getting a little
out of hand here. The Senator from New Mexico deserves to be heard, the
same as those on the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The Senator
from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank my colleague from
Kentucky.
This amendment is offered on behalf of myself, Senator Reid, Senator
Feinstein, and Senator Chafee. It is bipartisan. It is an important
bipartisan issue. We have always before, at least since the national
goal was established in 1989, found excuses to not do anything to
follow up and achieve the goal. This time we need to go ahead and
commit some Federal resources to help local school districts solve this
problem. This amendment is a step in that direction. I hope very much
that people will support the amendment.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator
Bingaman's amendment. Under the Senator's amendment, $125 million is
authorized for grants in the first year alone. It would create an
office of dropout prevention in the Department of Education. The
amendment would allow for the creation of a dropout czar at the
Department of Education.
As Senator Frist so eloquently stated when the amendment was debated
earlier, he suggested as chairman of the Budget Committee's task force
on education that we look to creative ways to assist all of our
students, proposals such as the block grant, which the Senate agreed to
only yesterday, which will allow States and localities the flexibility
to decide for themselves how to best spend education dollars.
Senator Frist argued that this amendment adds yet to the complexity
of an already encumbered Federal Department of Education. I call on my
colleagues to oppose the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2308. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 26, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]
YEAS--74
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Gramm
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--26
Allard
Ashcroft
Brownback
Coats
Cochran
Enzi
Feingold
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Nickles
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
The amendment (No. 2308) was agreed to.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Modification to Amendment No. 2299
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify
Amendment No. 2299, previously agreed to, making technical changes,
which I have at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The modification is as follows:
Change the instruction line to read:
Strike section 101 as amended and insert the following:
[[Page S3495]]
EXPLANATION OF ABSENCE--VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 2305
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, prior to the noon hour today, the Senate
cast a roll call vote on our colleague Senator Dodd's amendment No.
2305 to H.R. 2646, the Coverdell Education bill. This vote to waive the
Budget Act with respect to the Dodd amendment failed by a vote of 46-
53. I was unavoidably detained in the Physician's Office of the
Capitol, but would have voted against waiving the Budget Act. My vote
would not have altered the final outcome of the vote.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just so all Members will be aware of what we
are talking about at this point--and I do not have a unanimous consent
request ready at this moment, but I will have one momentarily for
Senator Daschle to review--we will be having additional votes tonight.
We try to accommodate Senators' schedules, but we believe we can get an
agreement for final debate on the education bill and then have a
recorded vote. That I presume would occur sometime around 7 o'clock, or
earlier if some time is yielded back. That will be followed, if we can
enter the agreement, by a debate of approximately 30 minutes on the
resolution dealing with Northern Ireland and a vote after that.
I assume we will have then two additional votes tonight, and then we
will have a further announcement about the schedule on Friday, but with
no recorded votes on Friday, and Monday with likely recorded votes, at
least a vote at 5:30 on Monday. But we will have that for each leader
to review momentarily, and we will be asking for consent to that
effect.
I yield the floor. Is any Senator seeking recognition?
I observe the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. In the interest of making sure we utilize all time that is
available, we have here and ready to speak Senators who are interested
in the resolution with regard to Ireland.
____________________