[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.

                          ____________________