[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 46 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3499-S3528]
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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order just stated, the Senate will 
now resume discussion and debate of H.R. 2646.
  Under the previous order, the question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of 
California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have not had an opportunity to speak 
on this bill. I take this opportunity to do so now.
  Prior to yesterday, it was my full intention to vote for this bill. 
After yesterday, I regret to say I have some serious problems with it 
and cannot vote for it at this time, but I will, if the problems are 
remedied, vote for this bill when it comes out of conference.
  Let me speak just briefly about what the problems are and then why I 
think the Coverdell-Torricelli bill is so important and groundbreaking.
  Yesterday, this body accepted on a 50-to-49 vote an amendment to 
convert over $10 billion in currently targeted Federal education funds 
to a block grant to States. With adoption of this amendment, our 
efforts to direct limited Federal funds to national priorities are 
obliterated. Funds for disadvantaged students, funds to make schools 
safe and drug-free, funds for meeting national student achievement 
goals--virtually gone.
  For ESEA Title I, the bill as it now stands deletes important 
requirements:
  Requirements for student performance standards and assessment, 
something that I believe is vital if we are going to change the 
downward trend of public education in this country.
  Requirements for evaluating a program's effectiveness. How could 
someone oppose that?
  Requirements to take corrective action if programs are not effective. 
You mean, don't change a program if you find out it is not effective?
  And requirements that Federal funds not supplant State and local 
funds. That was the Gorton amendment.

  Secondly, that same day the Senate adopted, on a 52-47 vote, an 
amendment which would prohibit voluntary national testing of students. 
Last year, this body worked out a bipartisan compromise on reading and 
math testing

[[Page S3500]]

under which States and local school districts could participate in 
national achievement tests, if they wished, voluntarily. Many, 
including several school districts in California, have agreed to 
participate. A good thing. Without national tests we have no way of 
comparing student performance, therefore, the success of individual 
States in educating their students from State to State. This was the 
Ashcroft amendment. It would abolish these voluntary tests.
  Both of these amendments run counter to my very strong education 
beliefs. And more importantly, I believe they obliterate any chance of 
a veto being overridden by this body. I think that is really too bad, 
because I was one Democrat who was planning to vote to override a 
Presidential veto if necessary because I believe the Coverdell-
Torricelli bill breaks important ground which I, frankly, am pleased to 
stand and support and defend.
  I have heard the bill called a lot of things: ``A voucher system.'' 
In my view, it isn't. A ``subsidy to private institutions.'' In my 
view, it isn't. A ``gift to the wealthy.'' In my view, it isn't. I have 
heard it said that it is ``bad education policy.'' I disagree. ``Bad 
tax policy.'' I disagree.
  What this bill is, is an encouragement to save for education in a 
society that lives on credit and saves very little. In my book, that is 
good. I intended to vote for this bill.
  Last year, as you all know, we had the IRA savings accounts for 
higher education of $500. Both political parties thought that was good. 
That would be extended to $2,000 and extended down through elementary 
school by this bill, whether the family that saves wants to spend that 
money in a public institution, a private institution, a religious or a 
parochial institution. I think that is good, sound public policy.
  I have heard it said this is only for the rich. I suppose the reason 
for that is because these special savings accounts would be available 
to couples earning under $150,000 and single people earning under 
$95,000. And some people say, ``Why should we give them any benefit?'' 
Well, let me tell you, in my view, saving for education makes sense, 
whether you make $30,000 a year or $90,000 a year. It is good and we 
should encourage it. Of course, it may not be politically correct, but 
if it makes education a higher priority or a little easier, even 
better, what is wrong with that?
  Let me speak for a moment on how Americans save.
  The U.S. personal savings rate has been dropping for some time. In 
1997, it fell again from 4.3 percent in 1996 to 3.8 percent in 1997. 
The U.S. household personal savings rate for 1996 was 4.4 percent; 
compared to Japan, with its troubled economy, at 12 percent; Germany at 
11.4 percent; France at 12.8 percent; and Italy at 13 percent. So the 
United States saves about two-thirds less than any of these countries.
  I'll give you an example of what is good about this bill. Let us say 
you are a struggling single mother, as I was at one point in my life. I 
earned less than $30,000 a year. I was a single mother with a young 
child. I could not save; that is true. Nonetheless, if I had had an 
uncle who saw an incentive like the tax incentives in this bill, and 
said, ``Aha, she's got problems now. Let me start a savings account for 
her little girl,'' I would have appreciated it. This savings incentive 
would be available to a parent, a grandparent, an uncle or an aunt.
  So if a grandparent can contribute to a grandchild's education, when 
the mother of that child only earns $25,000 or $30,000 a year, what is 
wrong with that? That is good. And if they want to spend that savings 
in a private school, in a public school, in a parochial school, I say, 
what is wrong with that?
  I am a strong supporter of public schools, but I must tell you that I 
reject the thinking that says there is only one way to look at 
strengthening education, that is that you can only push it in one 
direction. What this underlying bill does is to encourage people to 
save for education and then use their savings for education.
  What I like about this bill is it does just that. It says, if you 
send your child to a public school, you can use this bill perhaps to 
buy them a computer. You can use this bill to get them tutors or to 
send them to a special after-school program or you can use this bill to 
buy their school uniforms. Or if you are lucky enough or want to send 
your child to a private school, yes, you can use this money you saved, 
or the child's grandparent or the child's aunt or the child's uncle 
saved, you can use that to educate this child.
  In a country where public education and other education is weak, why 
wouldn't we want to encourage savings for education? In the first 
place, families can talk about it. ``Oh, I'm going to contribute to a 
savings account for my granddaughter. And here's where it's going to 
go. And here's how it's going to be used. And when she needs it, here's 
what's going to be there.'' I think that is healthy for this country.
  I commend both authors, both Senator Coverdell on the Republican side 
and Senator Torricelli on the Democratic side. I think this is an 
important bill. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that 58 percent 
of the tax benefit would accrue to those taxpayers filing returns with 
children in public schools. Fifty-eight percent would go to families 
who have children in public schools. So I do not believe this is a 
bailout for the rich. I do not believe it will help only the affluent.
  In California, a high-cost State, the cost of a home mortgage, a car 
loan, insurance premiums, clothing, recreation, are all high. Believe 
it or not, families that earn $90,000 a year have a hard time saving.
  In California, out of the 13 million tax returns filed, 10.4 million, 
or 78 percent, of these returns reflect earnings under $50,000. The 
average per capita income in California in 1998 is $28,500. Here is 
where the grandparents or an aunt or an uncle could really help out.
  Additionally, one out of every four students in a California school 
lives in a single-parent home. Again, 25 percent of the students are in 
single-parent families.
  I was in Los Angeles, meeting with a group of African American mayors 
of cities surrounding Los Angeles this past week, and a woman whom I 
very much respect from Watts, California, came up to me and said, 
``Hey, Dianne, tell me about this bill. Does this mean that if I can 
save this money, I can save it for my grandchild?'' And I said, ``Yes, 
Alice, it sure does.'' And she said, ``That sounds pretty good to me.'' 
Well, I have to tell you, it sounds pretty good to me, too.
  Only 51 percent of California's homes have a personal computer. Among 
Latino households, only 30 percent own a computer.
  In my State, we rank 45th out of 50 in student-to-computer ratios, 
with 14 students for every computer, compared to the national rate of 
10 students for a computer. We rank 43rd in network access. Our 
education technology task force has called for an $11 billion 
investment to put technology into K through 12 classrooms. Computers in 
the home can supplement those in the classroom. And this is a way for a 
grandparent, an uncle, a niece, to help with that.
  Another important part of the Coverdell-Torricelli bill that no one 
is talking about are the incentives for college education. This bill 
helps in three ways. First, it increases the allowable contributions to 
education IRAs that we created last year for college education. It 
raises them from $500 to $2,000. That is important in California 
because tuition is so high now, even in public institutions. This makes 
it possible.
  Second, again, it expands those who contribute to include those other 
than parents. These changes should encourage many more Californians to 
save for a college education. I say let's try it. Let's watch it. Let's 
see what happens.
  Finally, the bill allows interest earned in qualified State tuition 
plans to be exempt from Federal taxation. This could increase 
participation in California's new Scholarshare Trust Program. Effective 
January 1, 1998, this program authorizes participants to invest money 
in a trust on behalf of a specific beneficiary and it defers payment of 
State and Federal income taxes on interest earned, on investments in 
the trust, until benefits are distributed. Any California family or any 
person can open an account and distributions are authorized for all 
expenses of attending college. In the view of the Postsecondary 
Education Commission, the bill before us could enable Californians to 
save $25 million annually in Federal taxes, savings that can then be 
devoted to education.

[[Page S3501]]

  Let me just indicate increases in college tuition are outpacing 
increases in income. Total expenses during the 1997-1998 school year to 
attend the University of California at Berkeley were $13,169--a year; 
at UC San Diego, $13,400; California State, Chico, $10,000. For private 
schools, the cost in 1996-1997 of attending my alma mater, Stanford, 
was $30,410--when I went there, we ran costs of about $1,200 a quarter. 
Now it is $30,000 a year; at Occidental, $26,000; University of the 
Pacific, $25,000.
  California's public colleges and universities have been told to 
prepare for a 24 percent increase in enrollment by the year 2005, which 
translates into almost half a million additional students. The 
California Postsecondary Education Commission has predicted that our 
public college and university system will need about $1 billion in new 
revenues per year through 2006 to maintain existing facilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has spoken 15 
minutes. She can seek more time if she so desires.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This bill is not the end-all, be-all solution to the 
problems of our schools. But it is a good step.
  It is my intention to vote against this bill at this time because of 
the two additions I cited earlier. If the Gorton and Ashcroft 
amendments come out in conference and the appropriate tax incentives to 
save for education remain, I will vote for this bill and I will vote to 
override a Presidential veto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, Senator 
Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The U.S. Senate is about to pass a bill that deals 
with education and then send it to the President.
  Now, when I go back to Minnesota--and when I am in Minnesota I try to 
be in a school every 2 weeks--here are some of the questions that 
students might be asking me about this education bill.
  ``Senator,'' or ``Paul,'' will this legislation reduce the class size 
or the size of our classes so that our teachers will be able to give us 
more attention so we won't have to sit on a radiator because there is 
not enough room in the classroom?'' By the way, I don't speak just for 
Minnesota but I speak for a lot of schools I visited in this country. 
My answer will be no, though I would like to be able to say to those 
students yes, because I know how important class size is to whether or 
not they receive a good education.

  ``Senator, will there be any money to renovate our school?'' I was 
just meeting with a group of students from one of our schools, a middle 
school in Minnesota, the community of Cambridge. They were talking 
about some of the problems that they have. ``Senator, will there be any 
money to rebuild our schools?''
  Or as I think about some of the schools I visited around the country, 
and if I was talking to other children, they might be saying to me, 
``Senator, the roofs are caving in, the building is decrepit, the air-
conditioning doesn't work during the warm spring months, the heating 
system doesn't work well during the cold weather months. Is there any 
money to invest in the infrastructure, because we don't have the wealth 
in our communities to do this?'' My answer will be, ``No, not in this 
piece of legislation.''
  ``Senator, will this bill train teachers to use technology so they 
can incorporate that into their teaching--because we are hearing that 
it is so important for us to be technologically literate to compete in 
the economy. Will that happen?'' And my answer will be no.
  How about other people who work with children, people who are down in 
the trenches? This is their life's work. This is their passion. They 
say to me, ``Senator, did you in this education bill put any money into 
early childhood development so that when children reach kindergarten 
they will be ready to learn?'' And the answer will be no.
  Then another question will come: ``Senator, what about after-school 
care?'' I think about the Boxer amendment. ``Did you put any money into 
good community-based after-school care programs?'' A lot of us with 
teenage daughters and sons worry a lot about where they are and whether 
or not there would be something positive for them to do after school. 
``Did you all do anything in this legislation to help us?'' And the 
answer will be no.
  Then to make matters worse, with some of the amendments that have 
passed, I heard my colleague from California speaking, now we have 
block grant amendments that passed. So as a national community, what we 
used to say was we are a nation. We do not want to grow apart, we want 
to grow together. We make certain commitments here in the Senate and 
here in the House of Representatives representing our Nation. We are a 
national community with certain values and priorities. By golly, one of 
them is title I. We want to make sure that children who come from 
families in difficult circumstances--low and moderate income and other 
problems--get some additional support, and our schools get some 
additional support so they can give these kids some additional help.
  Now there is no assurance that will happen. There is no assurance 
that we will have the same commitment to safe and drug-free schools. We 
now have with this piece of legislation $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion--
what we have done is not just a money issue. It is not just a lack of 
investment in crumbling schools. That is not there. It is not just the 
lack of investment in smaller class sizes. It is not there. It is not 
the lack of investment in enabling teachers to get more training for 
uses in technology. It is not there. It is not just a great step 
backward where we don't invest the money in public education.
  I don't know what slice of the population we are talking about, but I 
will tell you there are not a lot of Minnesotans who can just take 
$2,000 and put it into savings. What about the vast majority of people 
who don't have those dollars, who are concerned about the communities 
they live in and the schools their children go to, public education?
  This isn't a great step forward for public education or education for 
children; this is a great leap backward. Now we have done something 
else, I say to my colleagues who supported this initial framework. What 
we have done through amendments passed on this floor is undercut what 
has been a historic national community commitment to title I, to 
children who need that additional help. This is not a step forward; 
this is a great leap backward.
  Mr. President, I will tell you, this piece of legislation is a piece 
of legislation that does not do well for many, many children in our 
country. We should be able to do much better. If we were to think about 
the best kinds of things we could do to make sure that children would 
do well, that we could have good education for all of our children, we 
would have put a lot of emphasis on smaller class size, and there is no 
emphasis on it; a lot of emphasis on early childhood development, and 
there is no emphasis on this; a lot of emphasis on after-school 
programs, and there is nothing in this legislation; a lot of emphasis 
on rebuilding crumbling schools.
  What kind of message do you think these children get when they walk 
into these dilapidated buildings? The message is that we don't value 
them. But there is nothing in this legislation that deals with that. 
Mr. President, what we also would have done is, we would have focused 
not just on the children, but we should be focusing also on the parent 
or parents. The two most important explanatory variables in determining 
how well children do are the income status and the educational status 
of their parent or parents. We don't put the emphasis on that. We don't 
put the emphasis on making sure there is health care there and good 
jobs and family income. We don't put the emphasis on smaller class 
size. We don't put emphasis on rebuilding crumbling schools. We don't 
put emphasis on preschool, early childhood development or after-school 
programs. What we do is undercut and wipe away a major commitment that 
we have made to the title I program and funds for kids from low- and 
moderate-income families.
  This piece of legislation is not a great step forward; it is a great 
leap backward from a commitment to public education, from a commitment 
to children and families all across the

[[Page S3502]]

United States of America, from a national commitment to making sure 
that we expand opportunities for all of the children in our country.
  This piece of legislation doesn't do that. It may pass, but it will 
be vetoed by the President. And I will say to my colleagues that I am 
sorry, because I guess, with the exception of some Senators who have a 
different view, this is by and large a difference that we have on the 
two sides of the aisle. I look forward to this national debate. We will 
be debating education. In a way, this exercise--I would not call it 
meaningless. People spoke. But the truth of the matter is that 
everybody knows the President is going to veto this bill. He has made 
that clear. In that sense, all of us have felt a little uneasy about 
this week. But the debate will go on, because this issue of education, 
this issue of our children, whether our children will get good 
educational opportunities so they will do well in their lives--this is 
an important issue to families in North Dakota, Connecticut, Minnesota, 
and all across the country.
  As a Democrat, I am telling you, we are going to take this issue out 
and about the country. We are going to have a discussion, dialog, and 
debate. This piece of legislation, especially with these amendments, 
represents a huge step backward, and I want people in the country to 
understand that on this issue, the differences between the Democrats 
and Republicans makes a huge difference.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields the Senator time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have been authorized to confirm the 
time allocated to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, and yield 
myself up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator is recognized for up 
to 15 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for 
the Parent and Student Savings Account PLUS Act, which I am pleased to 
join Senators Coverell and Torricelli in cosponsoring, and also to urge 
my colleagues to give this bill a full and fair hearing before making 
up their minds on it.
  The core of this legislation is similar to a provision that passed 
both houses of Congress as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, but 
was stricken out before the President gave his final approval. The 
Taxpayer Relief Act authorized the creation of an Education IRA that 
would allow parents to set aside up to $500 each year in a tax-free 
account to help pay for their children's college education, a provision 
that I cosponsored. Senator Coverdell succeeded in adding an amendment 
that would permit parents to also use this Education IRA to pay for 
elementary and secondary education costs, but that provision was 
ultimately dropped from the final version of the Taxpayer Relief Act at 
the request of the Administration.
  The bill we are considering today, H.R. 2646, mirrors the modifying 
amendment that Senator Coverdell offered. It would increase the annual 
contribution limit for the Education IRA up to $2,000, and then expand 
the definition of ``qualified expenses'' to also allow families to 
withdraw money from the account without penalty for K-12 expenses, such 
as tutoring, tuition, books, uniforms, computers and special services 
for disabled students. Like the original Education savings account, 
this expanded version would be targeted at the broad range of working 
and middle class families with dependents under 18 years old, limiting 
eligibility to those households with annual income of less than 
$160,000.
  Judging this proposal on the merits, it makes eminent sense. At a 
time when parents are growing increasingly concerned about the quality 
of K-12 education their children are receiving and when many educators 
are trying desperately to spur greater parental involvement in their 
children's schooling, the expanded Education savings account would 
encourage parents to invest directly in their children's education, 
from kindergarten all the way through to graduate school, and take a 
more active role in the lives of their sons and daughters. And at a 
time when many parents are seeking more choices for their kids, 
especially for the students who are trapped in failing and unresponsive 
local schools, this bill would help make private or parochial school a 
more affordable option for those families who decide that is the best 
choice for their child, or in some cases, the only chance to get a 
decent education.
  For the average family, this plan would provide a significant 
incentive to set aside some of their savings for the myriad costs they 
may face in helping their children reach their full potential, such as 
the after-school math tutoring an underachieving child needs to reach 
grade level, or the new computer a budding programmer needs to upgrade 
his skills, or the special classes a dyslexic students needs to take to 
overcome her disability, or even the price of tuition a family needs to 
pay to ensure that their child can learn in a safe, disciplined 
environment. According to an analysis by the Joint Tax Committee, if a 
family with annual income of $70,000 contributed the maximum each year 
to the expanded IRA, they would accumulate a savings of more than 
$17,000 by the time their first child was age seven, while saving 
$1,000 in taxes. By the time that same child was ready to start high 
school, the account would be worth $41,000, and the tax savings would 
top $4,300.
  Those are significant sums of money, which could be used for 
immediate needs when children are growing up, or in many families, 
could be reserved primarily to help meet the financial burden of going 
to college. The choice is up to each individual family on how to spend 
their money--which is an important point to stress, that we are talking 
about after-tax income, not the ``government's'' money, not a tax 
credit or even a deduction. It is the parent's money, not the 
government's. The modest tax benefit we are proposing would simply 
reward them for saving for their child's future, which is exactly why 
we passed the original Education savings account with strong bipartisan 
support.
  This is all reasonable and sensible, which leaves me puzzled as to 
why some are attacking this bill as if we were proposing to destroy 
public education in this country as we know it. Judging from the 
overheated rhetoric we have been hearing, this plan is little more than 
a backdoor attempt to funnel money into private schools at the expense 
of public schools and create a new tax shelter for the wealthy. It 
would ``do nothing to improve teaching or learning in our public 
schools,'' in the words of one group; instead, it would ``undermine 
support of public education,'' in the words of the another. And a third 
organization seethed that this bill is really ``private and parochial 
school vouchers masquerading as tax policy.''

  For those of us who have fought the school choice battles in the 
past, the nature and vehemence of these criticisms is familiar. Last 
fall, for instance, we called for the creation of a small pilot program 
here in Washington, D.C., that would have authorized $7 million to 
provide 2,000 disadvantaged children with scholarships to attend the 
school of their choice, without a dime away from the amount requested 
by the D.C. public schools. For that Secretary of Education Richard 
Riley, a man I truly admire, went so far as to suggest that our bill 
would ``undermine a 200-year American commitment to the common 
school.''
  But what is surprising in this case is how utterly disconnected the 
current criticisms are from the bill we are considering today. Let's 
start with the fact that this measure does not remotely resemble a 
voucher or scholarship plan, nor does it target aid to private schools. 
This is a savings account bill, one that simply raises the contribution 
limit for the existing education savings account and gives parents the 
choice to use some of those savings for K-12 expenses. It is 
unequivocally neutral on its face--it does not distinguish between 
public school parents and private school parents. It is meant to help 
all parents, and the truth of the matter is that the clear majority of 
parents who are expected to take advantage of it--70 percent, according 
to the Joint Tax Committee--will have their children in public schools. 
To suggest otherwise is to ignore the growing variety of educational 
costs that many public school parents face these days, and overlook

[[Page S3503]]

the tens of thousands of parents who are turning to places like Sylvan 
Learning Center to help improve their children's skills.
  The critics of the education savings account legislation are also off 
base when they proclaim that it would do absolutely nothing to help 
public education. To see why, I would urge my colleagues on both sides 
to re-read the President's major educational priorities. Both the 
President and the Secretary have rightly argued that stimulating 
greater parental involvement is critical to reaching all seven of the 
Administration's top goals, particularly when it comes to improving 
reading proficiency. The Secretary believes it is so essential that he 
established a broad-based national initiative--the ``Partnership for 
Family Involvement in Education''--to better engage parents. The bill 
we are debating today, H.R. 2646, will help by encouraging parents 
across the country to save for the future and take a more active role 
in their children's schooling. It will not singlehandedly raise test 
scores or prompt millions of new parents to join their local PTAs. But 
is will complement and reinforce the work that the Secretary and many 
national and grassroots education groups are already doing, and for 
that reason it is worthy of our support.
  Perhaps the most vexing criticism of this super Education IRA plan is 
the notion that it will only benefit the wealthy. The language of the 
bill explicitly refutes that point, and I would urge my colleagues to 
read it for themselves. They will see that it precludes any individual 
parent with income above $110,000 or any couple above $160,000 from 
contributing to an expanded IRA. I would also urge my colleagues to 
refer again to the Joint Tax Committee's analysis of the bill, which 
projects that 70 percent of the tax benefit from the expanded IRA will 
go to families with annual incomes less than $75,000--middle class 
families. And I would urge them to consider the provision in the bill 
that allows any corporation, union, or non-profit organizations to 
contribute to IRAs for low-income students. The growth of donations to 
private scholarship funds across the country--more than $40 million has 
been raised since 1991 for programs in more than 30 cities, including 
one in Bridgeport, Connecticut--suggests that there are many generous 
groups who would be interested in lending their support to an Education 
IRS for a disadvantaged child.

  Mr. President, in making these points, I harbor no illusions. I 
recognize that a relatively small number of poor families will likely 
benefit from the expanded IRAs, and that these accounts will primarily 
help middle and upper middle class families who have the means to 
maintain them. But that is a significant chunk of our populace, and 
most of them are financially stressed in trying to meet the costs of 
home, family and school. If this bill can spur them to invest in their 
children's education and generate parental involvement, then it will 
serve a valuable purpose.
  Moreover, I would also say to my colleagues that if they truly want 
to target aid to disadvantaged children who are not being well-served 
by the status quo, then they should support legislation that Senator 
Coats and I have sponsored that would establish low-income school 
choice programs in several major cities. These pilot programs would 
give thousands of poor students the opportunity to attend a better 
school and realize their hopes of better future, while providing us as 
policy-makers an opportunity to examine what impact this kind of 
narrowly-targeted, means-tested approach would and could have on the 
broader education system. Many of the supporters of the bill we are 
debating today also have expressed strong support for the Coats-
Lieberman bill, so it's just not accurate to suggest that the sponsors 
of the education savings account legislation are merely interest in 
helping the well-off.
  Nevertheless, the opponents of this bill continue to insist that we 
are wrong no matter what the facts say. Last year, many of my 
Democratic colleagues and many of the leading educational groups voiced 
their strong support for the original Education IRA as a boon to middle 
class families struggling to pay for college. Today they turn around 
and attack the same concept with the same income caps--let me repeat, 
the same exact income caps--as a sop to the rich. The difference, of 
course, is that parents would have the choice to use the savings from 
the expanded IRA for K-12 expenses for public and private schools 
students, or college or both.
  That distinction is so significant to our cities that they are 
willing to eliminate the part of the A+ Accounts bill that would 
increase the contribution limit for the IRA from $500 to $2000, which 
would give millions of parents an even greater incentive to save for 
college, in order to prevent us from providing a modicum of relief for 
elementary and secondary costs. That facet of the bill has gotten lost 
in all the hyperbole of this debate, and it bears repeating: Beyond 
allowing parents to use the IRA to pay for K-12 expenses, this measure 
would significantly enhance their ability to meet the burden of paying 
for college. In fact, according to the Joint Tax Committee, the clear 
majority of the additional $1.64 billion in tax benefit that this bill 
would extend over the next 10 years would go to families who are saving 
for higher education, a very important purpose for them and for our 
country in this education age. That is something that the critics of 
this super Education IRA are reluctant to acknowledge. According to 
them, practically every last penny from this bill will end up in the 
coffers of private elementary and secondary schools. On the contrary, 
most of the money saved will go to colleges and universities.
  Hearing these misdirected attacks, I can't help but ask why so many 
thoughtful, well-intentioned educational groups are engaging in so many 
logical contortions to bring down this bill. To answer that question, I 
would repeat the simple theory I offered last fall during the rancorous 
debate over the D.C. scholarship bill: Love is blind even in public 
policy circles. I fear that our critics are so committed to the noble 
mission of public education that they have shut their eyes to the 
egregious failures in some of our public schools and insisted on 
defending the indefensible. And they are so conditioned to believing 
that any departure from the one-size-fits-all approach is the beginning 
of the end for public schools that they refuse to even concede the 
possibility that offering children a choice could give them a chance at 
a better life while we are working to repair and reform all of our 
public schools.
  In this week's debate, we are seeing this reflexive defensiveness 
again. We are not discussing a voucher bill. We are not attempting to 
give nay Federal money to private schools. We are proposing a modest 
plan to help families--not public school families, or private school 
families, but families of all kinds--provide the best educational 
opportunities for their children. It sounds a lot like the G.I. bill or 
the guaranteed student loan program, which we all support. But because 
some parents who take advantage of these accounts and the small tax 
benefit we are offering will choose to send their children to private 
schools, this bill is seen as anathema by some.

  Mr. President, as the consideration of this bill proceeds, I would 
appeal to my colleagues to lay down their rhetorical arms and listen--
not to be bipartisan co-sponsors of the bill, but to the people we are 
trying to help. Yes, they want smaller class sizes, and yes, they want 
safer and sturdier public schools, and yes, they want better-trained 
teachers. But those are not reasons to oppose this bill. In addition to 
seeking more money to improve our public schools, parents increasingly 
are demanding more choices for their children--be it in the form of 
public school choice, charter schools, or scholarships for low-income 
kids to attend a quality private or parochial school. And they are 
seeking more of a focus on results rather than a defense of the system 
and all who function in it.
  Poll after poll confirms this. For the sake of this debate, let me 
cite just a few. A recent survey by the Center for Education Reform 
found that 82 percent of parents said they would support efforts to 
give them the option of sending their children to the public or private 
school of their choice. A much-quoted study done by the Joint Center 
for Political and Economic Studies last year found that 57 percent of 
African-Americans and 65 percent of Hispanics

[[Page S3504]]

favor the use of vouchers to expand opportunities for low-income 
students. And even Phi Beta Kappa, which is openly skeptical of private 
school choice, found in its annual poll on public attitudes towards 
public schools a slim plurality of Americans would now support a 
program using tax dollars to pay tuition at private school for some 
children. If my colleagues need any more evidence, I would point them 
to the mushrooming charter school movement, where parents and teachers 
hungry for alternatives to the status quo have started more than 700 
new schools from scratch over the last five years, with hundreds more 
to open next fall.
  The bill we are considering today cannot and will not guarantee 
greater choices for every family. But it does offer a progressive 
response to the public's pleas for innovative educational solutions 
that focus less on process and more on children. That, in my mind, is 
what is truly at stake here in this debate. We cannot walk away from 
our responsibility to fix what ails our public schools, to set high 
standards, and demand greater accountability in meeting them. But in 
doing so, we must not be so defensive in our thinking that we 
reflexively rule out innovative options that deviate a scintilla from 
the prevailing orthodoxy.
  That is why I have urged my colleagues to give choice a chance. That 
is why I have urged this body to give charters a chance, which I am 
proud to report we did last year in raising Federal funding by 60 
percent for this fiscal year. And that is why I am appealing to my 
colleagues today to give this Education IRA bill a chance. By doing so, 
we can prove that it is possible to encourage parents to invest in 
their children's future without disinvesting in our common schools. And 
hopefully we can begin to change the dynamic of what for too long has 
been a disappointingly dogmatic and unproductive debate on education 
policy in this country and lay the groundwork for a new bipartisan 
commitment to putting children first.
  Mr. President, again, this bill is part of a host of responses to a 
reality to, I think, all of us here in this Chamber, which is that 
while we have many extraordinarily positive things going on in our 
system of education in this country, while we have tens of thousands, 
hundreds of thousands, of gifted and, I would say, heroically 
successful teachers, while we have excellent schools--public, private, 
and faith-based--in our country, the fact is that the status quo in 
American elementary and secondary education is not working for millions 
of our children.
  The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, spoke today with eloquence, 
with force, and with truth about the extent to which education, which 
has always been the way in which we have made the American dream of 
opportunity real for generations of our people, and which is even more 
necessarily so today because of the highly informational, technological 
age in which we live--how that ticket to a better life is being 
deprived to millions of our children today, who are going to school in 
buildings that are in shabby shape and schools that are unsafe--not 
only are the buildings unsafe, but it is unsafe to be there in many 
cases. Too often, they are taught--and I use the word advisedly--by 
teachers who are not prepared in the subjects that they are supposed to 
be teaching. Too many parents are wanting to help their children more, 
but they are too burdened economically to find a way to make that 
happen. Class sizes are too large, and professional development of 
teachers is not what it should be.
  Mr. President, I view this A+ Act, these A+ accounts, as one 
thoughtful, progressive response to that problem. It is not the 
solution to the problems that face American education and our children 
today. The fact is that there is no one answer to those problems. And 
the shortcoming of the debate that we have had here and the political 
jousting that is going on here--too much of it partisan--is that this 
debate is being framed as if it were a multiple-choice question on an 
exam for which there is only one right answer. That is not reality. 
There is not one right answer. The underlying bill here--the A+ 
accounts--is a thoughtful part of an answer. Many of the amendments 
offered, such as one regarding school construction, and class size, and 
Senator Boxer's on after-school education, are all part of the 
solution. And there are other decent, constructive, thoughtful answers 
to the crisis.
  I hope we can find a way--and I hope it is after we pass this bill, 
which I strongly support--to put aside the jousting and figure out a 
way to sit down together and find common ground that is aimed at 
benefiting the millions of schoolchildren in this country who are not 
being adequately educated today. That is going to require all sides to 
drop some of the orthodoxies, to drop some of the prejudices, to drop 
some of the political reflex instincts at work here today, and to go 
forward not to develop issues for the next campaign but to develop 
programs for the next school year for our children. That is the way I 
approach this legislation.
  This is similar to a provision that passed both Houses of Congress as 
part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 but was stricken out before the 
President gave his final approval. The Taxpayer Relief Act did 
authorize the creation of an education savings account that would allow 
parents to set aside up to $500 each year in an after-tax account to 
help pay their children's college education--a provision that I was 
proud to have cosponsored. The income limits in that proposal were 
exactly the same as in the proposal before us today. That proposal 
enjoyed broad bipartisan support. No one called it a sop to the rich at 
that point, because it certainly was not. It was a helping hand to 
middle class families who are trying to send their kids to college to 
better educate them and to figure out how to do it without putting an 
enormous financial burden of debt on their backs.

  Senator Coverdell and Senator Torricelli have had the imagination to 
simply take that idea and increase the amount of money that could be 
put in up to $2,000, and make it, as the debate has made clear, 
applicable to elementary and secondary education as well as college, 
and to make it available for use by parents for both public school 
students and for students of those parents who choose to send them to 
private or faith-based schools.
  This bill could be called ``the private GI bill.'' It is really, in 
principle, no different than the GI bill that is one of the great 
accomplishments of the American Government in the postwar period. I say 
``private'' because the money isn't governmental, the money is the 
parents'. It is the families' own money that they put into the 
accounts. Then they decide how they want to use it to benefit their 
child's education and to put their child on a path to self-sufficiency 
in this technological information age.
  Some people talk about this bill as if it were the beginning and the 
end for public education. How could that be so? This is the beginning 
of an assist to parents of working middle class families, to encourage 
them to save some money so that they can help us better educate their 
children. Our priority in this country has been and always will be 
public education. That is where most of our children will be educated. 
That is where most of our effort must be put. But the crisis that 
plagues too many of our schools today forces us to focus on results. 
What are the results of the education system? What are we getting for 
the money we are putting into it and not on protecting the status quo?
  I view this not as a revolutionary proposal. Not at all. It is a 
modest, thoughtful, progressive, cost-efficient way to help parents 
better educate their children. Let's not forget that one of the 
elements of the administration's education program is to get parents 
more involved in their children's education.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reread the 
President's major education priorities. Both the President and the 
Secretary of Education have rightfully argued that stimulating greater 
parental involvement is critical to reaching all seven of the 
administration's very worthy, right on target, top education goals, 
particularly when it comes to improving reading proficiency. The 
Secretary believes it is so essential that he established a broad-based 
national initiative, a partnership for family involvement in education 
to better engage parents.
  The bill we are debating today I am convinced will help by 
encouraging

[[Page S3505]]

parents across the country to save for the future and to take a more 
active role in their children's schooling. It will not singlehandedly 
raise test scores or prompt millions of new parents to join their local 
PTA. But it will complement and reinforce the work of the Secretary of 
Education, the great work that he and many national and grassroots 
education groups are already doing. For that reason alone, to encourage 
more parental involvement in our children's education, I think this 
proposal is worthy of support.
  Mr. President, as I see you in the Chair, the Senator from Indiana, 
it reminds me to make this point. Some have said that this bill is a 
sop to the rich because of the income limits. In my opinion, it is a 
helping hand to the middle class working families. The reality is that 
the poorest families in our country probably will not have the money. I 
hope they can find some to put into these tax-free education savings 
accounts.
  But I appeal to my colleagues. If you really want to help give a 
boost to poor children, if you are looking for a program that targets 
aid to those who are most disadvantaged, please take another look at 
the low-income school scholarship choice programs that the Senator from 
Indiana and I have tried in vain to convince 60 of our colleagues, 58 
besides ourselves, to support so we could at least give these programs 
a test. Those programs are totally means tested. There is no sop to the 
rich there--not even a helping hand. It is to the middle class and 
directed totally to the poorest of our citizens.
  Mr. President, let me make two final points. I listened very 
carefully to my colleague and friend, the distinguished Senator from 
California, who is troubled by at least two of the amendments that have 
been put forward, both of which I voted against, one by the Senator 
from Washington and the other by the Senator from Missouri. Her 
decision, which I respect, is to vote against this bill because of 
those amendments.
  My decision, because of my strong support for the underlying bill, 
the idea of these empowering education savings accounts, is to vote for 
the bill with the amendments, although I oppose the amendments, but to 
appeal to all of our colleagues who will sit on the conference 
committee on this measure to remove those amendments, to bring them 
back on another day, so that they do not jeopardize the enormous 
accomplishment that we can make by passing the underlying bill.

  I want to say specifically with regard to Senator Gorton's amendment 
on block grants that he spent a lot of time on it and he did a lot of 
good work. It is a very thoughtful proposal. It is significantly 
improved--if I could use that judgmental term at least in my frame of 
reference--from the last time he presented it to the Senate. I know he 
has met with education groups about it. But the reality is, in my 
opinion, that it is too large a change. The underlying bill, that is 
significant, as I have said, is not revolutionary. Senator Gorton's 
amendment is revolutionary. I think appropriately it ought not to be 
passed after a brief debate as an amendment to another bill; it ought 
to be considered in the fullest of time next year, when the Congress 
will take up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  The final point is this: I hope beyond the effort to take these 
controversial amendments off, which are guaranteed to bring a 
Presidential veto, that the conferees will break out of the tug-of-war 
mode that the two sides are in and see if we can't find common ground. 
I have great respect for the Senator from Georgia, whose imagination 
built on the education savings account, the bill we passed last year, 
and made it into this excellent A+ account proposal. I know he has not 
spent the time which he has, as well as Senator Torricelli and others, 
just to pass a bill that is vetoed by the President and nothing 
happens. I know him well enough to know that he is not looking--if I 
may speak directly--for an issue, he is looking for an accomplishment, 
as all of us are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 15 minutes have expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask my colleague from Georgia for simply an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield another 2 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.
  My appeal is that when this bill passes, as I am convinced it will, 
that the conference committee, or meetings outside the conference 
meeting, including representatives of both parties, both Chambers, and 
the administration, sit down together and see if we can't put a package 
together that includes these education savings accounts, the A+ 
accounts, and opens the door and includes some of the proposals that 
have been made by some of my Democratic colleagues in this debate and 
are favored by the administration.
  I think that is the way to have the result of all of this debate this 
week to be more than noise and issues to carry into the campaign. That 
is the way to have this debate result in some real change, some real 
hope of reform in America's educational system, and, most specifically 
and in a more personal way, some real hope for a better future for the 
millions of children in America who are not being given that chance for 
proficiency because we are not giving them the educational tools they 
deserve.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Georgia, Senator Cleland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CLELAND. Thank you, very much.
  Mr. President, I would like to commend the senior Senator from 
Georgia, my dear colleague and friend, Senator Coverdell, for his 
stick-to-itiveness in bringing this issue to the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. He has worked hard on the Parent and Student Savings Account 
Act. This bill is the product of many long hours of hard work and 
compromise and collaboration, and Senator Torricelli and other members 
of the Finance Committee deserve praise for bringing this issue to the 
floor.
  I would like to state for the record that I had planned to support 
final passage of the Parent and Student Savings Account (PLUS) Act as 
reported out of Committee. In addition to the education savings account 
provision in the bill, H.R. 2646 contains a number of measures that 
further increase education opportunities for students, including the 
expansion of employer-provided education assistance to cover graduate 
courses, an allowance for individuals to make withdrawals from State 
tuition program accounts on a tax-free basis, and a provision providing 
an increase in the small issuer rebate exception for bonds used to 
finance school construction, all of which I strongly support.
  And I also support the education savings account provisions, 
especially the expansion of the credit for savings for college 
education, which have caused most of the controversy on the bill. While 
the Parent and Student Savings Account (PLUS) Act as reported by 
Committee was a modest and moderate bill and certainly was not the 
final answer to the education problems currently facing our country, I 
believe that by making additional resources available for education 
this bill represented a step forward and I had every intention of 
supporting it.
  Unfortunately, yesterday the Senate voted, by a one vote margin, to 
attach an amendment to this bill which I can not support, and which is 
neither modest nor moderate in impact. Senator Gorton's block grant 
amendment greatly concerns me and I believe that it is a risky 
experiment that will undermine the legitimate, but limited, federal 
role in support of public education.
  Senator Gorton's amendment would block grant funds for about one-
third of the programs administered by the Education Department 
including those for bilingual education, Title I programs which are 
targeted to poor, disadvantaged school districts, Safe and Drug-free 
Schools, and education technology. Some of these programs date back to 
the Eisenhower Administration. We cannot turn back the clock on 
programs such as these. The Gorton amendment will undermine the federal 
commitment to improve the nation's schools and opens the doors for 
abandonment of national commitments to

[[Page S3506]]

disadvantaged and disabled students and other priorities established 
over the years by a bipartisan consensus in Congress.
  In spite of the fact that this idea was first advanced many months 
ago when the Senate took up last year's education appropriations bill, 
no hearings have been held on this block grant proposal nor has there 
been any committee review of its impact. As I stated earlier, this 
amendment affects one- third of the federal education programs and 
would, in effect, radically restructure the administration of over $10 
billion of federal education dollars. I believe that it is premature 
and irresponsible for this body to pass legislation that would make 
such sweeping changes to the federal role in education based on thirty 
minutes of debate.

  As a strong supporter of state and local decision-making I fully 
support our current educational system which vests most authority for 
education at the level of government closest to students and parents, 
usually local school boards, with the federal role largely limited to 
the provision of supplemental financial assistance. However, I also 
believe that federal involvement, while limited, is necessary and that 
the Department of Education provides an appropriate oversight function 
to ensure basic educational standards, civil rights protections, 
program quality safeguards as well as overall accountability.
  I realize that there are many problems with today's schools. Our 
schools and our children, unfortunately, mirror many of the problems of 
our times. Drugs, gangs and weapons have infiltrated many of our 
schools and are adversely affecting our children. Student educational 
attainment is too low in far too many of our school systems. Combating 
these problems will take the best efforts of parents, teachers, 
administrators and governments at the local, state and federal level.
  In addition to Senator Gorton's amendment I also am very concerned 
about Senator Ashcroft's amendment which will prohibit spending Federal 
education funds on national testing. I believe that voluntary national 
achievement tests will empower parents and local school districts to 
assess how well their students are performing. Such measures will give 
parents insight into how their children are doing and how well their 
children's school is doing. From the voluntary tests, we will be able 
to determine if a child needs help, if a class needs help and if a 
school needs help. In direct conflict with the bipartisan compromise on 
national testing so painstakingly crafted last year, the Ashcroft 
Amendment will deny states and localities the right to utilize 
voluntary national tests to measure student learning and improve 
education so that all students will meet high academic standards, 
particularly in math and reading.
  Again, I would like to reiterate that I would have voted for the 
Committee-approved version of H.R. 2646, which was a modest and 
moderate pro-education bill. However, due to the adoption of the block 
grant and national testing amendments, in my view the current version 
of this legislation does more harm than good and I cannot in good 
conscience vote for it.
  I say to Senator Coverdell, who has put in many, many hours on behalf 
of this legislation, if these objectionable amendments are removed in 
conference, and I hope they will be, I will be pleased to vote for the 
conference report.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the Senator from 
New Jersey whatever time he will need, but I also take this moment to 
acknowledge the enormous work he has provided as a principal cosponsor 
from the beginning. He has been tireless, dedicated, thoughtful, and a 
great ally.
  I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coverdell for yielding 
the time and for his very gracious comments and, very importantly for 
the country and for the States, his extraordinary leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. President, I will concede that when this debate began I believed 
we were entering upon something very important, that after years of 
fooling ourselves about the quality of education in America, the Senate 
was about to undertake a broad and comprehensive debate--indeed, a 
discussion that could last not simply for this year or this Congress 
but through the decade--about how we fundamentally reform education in 
America, a debate in which everything was relevant and all subjects and 
proposals would come forward but one, and that is the defense of the 
status quo, because if there is one aspect of American life today that 
cannot in its entirety be defended, it is the quality of education that 
we are giving our children.
  The process of education in America today stands like a dagger at the 
heart of this country. It is time to speak the truth to parents and 
children alike, because it is not simply that the education of our 
country is not of a quality to compete, the problem is more 
fundamental--because many parents, working hard, paying their taxes, 
helping their children, believe they are being educated to world-class 
standards when they are not.
  The simple answer to the question, what can be said about the future 
of a country where one-third of its students may enter the work force 
functionally illiterate, 40 percent of fourth graders cannot meet 
minimum standards of math, 40 percent of eight graders cannot read at 
basic levels, the simple truth is a country that is teaching its 
children to those standards has a very limited economic future and 
cannot maintain its current quality of life or perhaps even social 
stability.
  That is the sad truth about our country today. And so I believed that 
when Senator Coverdell brought this legislation forward, we would be 
laying the foundation for an extensive debate about what we do about 
private and parochial schools, what we do about the public schools, 
that we would incorporate the best of President Clinton's ideas and 
that of the Democratic and Republican leadership and set out an agenda 
to carry us through the years in this great debate.
  It was sadly, it appears, Mr. President, not to be. There are aspects 
about the Coverdell legislation that have been said so many times and 
yet it is as if those who do not agree simply do not want to 
hear. Among those, sadly, I must say, my friend and a man that I admire 
as much as any in this country, the President of the United States, 
Bill Clinton. I heard the President yesterday say this is another form 
of a voucher, it is support for the wealthy, it is an abandonment of 
the public schools.

  It is worth stating one more time before this debate concludes so, no 
matter what the vote and however people may choose to cast their votes, 
we understand the simple truth. No one ever contended that the 
Coverdell legislation was an answer for every problem of education in 
America. If you are voting for it because you believe in one vote you 
solve all problems, you will not only be disappointed but you will be 
dishonest in casting your vote. It is one idea to deal with one set of 
problems. It does these things. But not as its critics have contended.
  Last year this Senate voted to establish savings accounts for college 
educations. In that instance, as on this day, we did not want this 
benefit to go to the wealthy alone. With limited resources, we wanted 
this benefit to go to middle-income people and working families. So we 
established income limits, $160,000 for a family, $110,000 for a single 
parent. Those are the same limits that are in this bill. If you came to 
this floor last year establishing savings accounts for college, 
believing you were targeting these resources to the middle-income 
people--and you did--on this day you have the same chance with the same 
limits of providing the same opportunity to the same families. This is 
a middle-income program. Yet it is argued this is just another form of 
a voucher.
  Senator Coverdell and I differ on the question of vouchers. He 
supports them. I do not. In either case, this is not a voucher. A 
voucher is a system whereby you take a drawing right upon Government 
money and you transfer that money from a public school to a private 
school. Under the Coverdell proposal, all the money being made 
available is your money. It is a family's savings, not the 
Government's. The public schools will not receive one dime less, not 
one dime less because we establish these accounts. All we are using, or 
allowing to be used, is the family's own money.

[[Page S3507]]

  At the end of the day, as Members of the Senate come to this floor to 
cast their votes, the issue is really more simple than it might 
otherwise appear. Senator Coverdell's proposal will provide a net 
increase over these years of $12 billion in new resources for American 
education, public and private. Who among us, knowing the test scores of 
our students, the quality of their instruction, the challenge to our 
country, would argue that this $12 billion should not be made available 
when it draws nothing from the Treasury, puts no restraint upon our 
resources, but simply allows families to join the fight for a quality 
education?
  Now the question arises, of that $12 billion, what else does it 
bring? Because, you see, not only is it not drawing upon Government 
resources but it draws upon another powerful idea. Through most of the 
life of this country, the education of a family, a child, a whole 
generation, was not seen as the responsibility of a school board or a 
government alone. It was grandparents and aunts and uncles, employers, 
a whole community was part of educating a child. Somehow, through the 
years, education became a government issue alone. The government will 
always be central to education, in raising the resources and hiring 
teachers and assuring quality, but part of the genius of this proposal 
is that through these savings accounts, on every holiday, on every 
birthday, on every occasion, aunts, uncles, grandparents, employers, 
labor unions, churches, can also put their money in these accounts to 
help educate these children. It is an invitation to the American family 
and community to get back into the process of educating American 
children.

  Yet, it is argued, those who may now concede maybe it doesn't just go 
to the wealthy, and maybe after this final argument they will concede 
maybe it is not government money, maybe it doesn't hurt the public 
schools--but what does it do for most American students who have these 
accounts? It bears repeating, because it goes to the heart of the issue 
of educational quality. I hope these accounts allow us to maintain a 
system of private education--be they Yeshivas or private or parochial 
schools, so parents have a legitimate choice of where to send their 
children. That choice and that competition has served America well in 
every other aspect of American life. I doubt it is a complication and I 
doubt it will fail to provide quality in education, as it does in all 
other areas of American life.
  But the fact of the matter is, too, these accounts are not just about 
maintaining a private school system in the country free of 
constitutional challenge by not using government money. The simple 
truth is, 90 percent of the students in America go to public school. We 
cannot begin to deal with issues of educational quality unless we also 
deal with public schools. Simply because most of these students go to 
public schools, by logic most of this money will go to public school 
students. The Joint Committee on Taxation has informed the Congress 
that 70 percent of this money, 70 percent of the beneficiaries of this 
money, will be public school students. Because under the proposal of 
Senator Coverdell, this money is available not simply for tuition to 
private schools, but after-school activities: Transportation after 
school, the hiring of tutors, home computers, books, software.
  It is an acknowledgment that education in the 21st century is not any 
longer just about a teacher, a desk, and a student. Learning will take 
place throughout the day, throughout the year, in many avenues of 
learning. How many middle-class and working-class families in America 
can afford to buy home computers, pay the cost of hiring a public 
school teacher to teach in the evening or after school when a child is 
having trouble with her studies? How many can buy the software so a 
student can do the research? How many can afford the after-school 
transportation, the uniforms, the athletic equipment, things that a 
generation ago as students we took for granted? They are not available 
anymore. Or they weren't necessary then, like tutors or home computers. 
But they are necessary now.
  For those who come to the floor and argue about the social justice of 
it, whether or not this is being made available to the broad majority 
of Americans, consider this. There is a new dividing line in America of 
opportunity and it is access to knowledge and education. Mr. President, 
60 percent of American families do not have home computers. Their 
ability to research, to write, to learn when they are not in school, to 
be competitive, is being compromised. Public education, the great 
leveler in America, can have two tiers--those families who have money 
for these ancillary purchases and those who do not; those who can 
afford tutors and those who do not, to participate in advanced math and 
science.
  Under the Coverdell proposal, these accounts are available to ensure 
that those 60 percent of Americans who do not have access to this 
technology can buy it through these accounts. Indeed, it is worse than 
it appears on its face. In the minority communities, 85 percent of 
African American families do not have access to home computers. This is 
an opportunity, it is an avenue where many of these families--
admittedly not all--many families can save their own money to prepare 
their students.
  Yet it will be argued by people of good faith who genuinely care 
about education, who will come to this floor and argue that, well, it 
may do those things, some students in the public schools may get home 
computers, some may get tutors, and in the private schools some working 
families may be able to keep their children in schools who couldn't do 
it otherwise, but it won't help everybody, it won't help a third of the 
students, 20 percent of the students, 10 percent of the students. They 
could not be more right. I have not heard Senator Coverdell argue, and 
certainly this Senator has not argued, that this is a prescription that 
will help every student in every way in every educational problem in 
America.
  I challenge one Senator to come to this floor with one idea that will 
do that. This is a single idea, not the last idea. It may not even be 
the best idea, but it is an idea that does help the problem of 
education in America. Let me address that for a moment, if I can, 
frankly in a partisan sense.
  For many years, members of my party proudly have been able to contend 
that the issue of education in America, in access and in quality, 
belonged to the Democratic Party. Indeed, from student loans to student 
lunches, title I through the vast array of 40 years of education 
programs, much of those programs were authored by Democrats in this 
Congress. It is one of the things that led me proudly to be a member of 
the Democratic Party.
  But if at this late date in our Nation dealing with our education 
problems we are about to engage in a partisan competition, if there is 
to be an upward spiral of competition in ideas for who can serve the 
cause of quality education, then it is a debate not only worthy of the 
country, but important for our future.
  Education savings accounts need be neither a Republican nor a 
Democratic idea. Last year in establishing such accounts for college, 
they were authored by President Clinton himself. This year, Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Breaux, Senator Biden, myself, and others have 
joined in this effort with Senator Coverdell to establish these 
accounts. This does not mean that we subscribe to the notion that this 
is a replacement for either the President's program or other proposals. 
Indeed, I began my remarks today by stating some profound 
disappointment. This legislation is worthy of being passed. It would be 
better if Senator Carol Moseley-Braun's legislation for school 
construction were included. With two-thirds of American schools in 
fundamental disrepair, needing serious construction, the Federal 
Government should be involved, and the President's proposal, as 
advanced by the Senator from Illinois, should be included.
  Senator Kennedy's proposal, in advancing the proposal of President 
Clinton for 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size to 18, should be 
included. Senator Levin's proposal for technology training for teachers 
would better prepare our schools and should be included. Senator 
Murray's proposal for class size; Senator Boxer's proposal for after-
school activities.
  I am going to support Senator Coverdell's proposal, because I believe 
it is a worthwhile contribution, but I also

[[Page S3508]]

concede this: This Senate could have done better. We may be addressing 
one important proposal and making one valuable contribution, but we 
could have made many valuable contributions. We could have made this 
genuinely bipartisan and further advance the cause of quality 
education.
  Finally, let me say that on this day when the vote is complete, I 
will join with Senator Lieberman, Senator Cleland, Senator Breaux, and 
others in a letter to the majority leader, because it is still not too 
late to have this educational debate be genuinely bipartisan to avoid a 
confrontation with President Clinton and to achieve something real in 
the process of education reform.
  The majority has the power in the conference committee to maintain 
its provisions to eliminate voluntary Federal testing standards across 
the country. The majority will have the votes and the power in the 
conference committee to impose block grants on the Department of 
Education under the title. That power exists, but it will not lead to 
the cause of bipartisanship or more comprehensive education reform. It 
will ensure a Presidential veto, frustrate those of us who have fought 
for education savings accounts, and deadlock this Senate in further 
consideration of improving educational quality in the United States.

  I urge the majority leader in the conference committee to use his 
influence to have those provisions removed, to allow Senator 
Coverdell's proposal to stand on its merits in which we can privately 
engage in a conversation with the President and convince him in one of 
the great ironies of this debate. Senator Coverdell's proposals are not 
only consistent with President Clinton's goals for education in 
America, they, indeed, spring from the same roots as his own programs 
last year for college education.
  Finally, I want to state my great admiration for Senator Coverdell, 
his tenacity and his creativity in having brought the Senate to this 
point. I know he must share my disappointment in that all of our 
optimism for bipartisanship, our hope for a thorough educational debate 
in which we could have engaged in a competition of how together we 
could improve the quality of our schools rather than having sought 
partisan advantage--it has been a disappointment, but we make progress 
where we can, remembering Edison's words that discontent is a necessary 
element in progress. We have had our share of discontent. Senator 
Coverdell, in the passage of his legislation, will at least have a 
share of progress as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I appreciate his 
eloquence. Again, I extend my thanks for his dedication and just 
tenacious strength in terms of promoting this legislation. I listened 
intently to his description of the circumstances, and I applaud his 
moment here in the Senate. Thank you.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. President, I listened carefully to the debate, as we have called 
it, over the course of the last few days, and to the comments of the 
Senator from New Jersey. I regret to say he is correct in saying this 
could have been a great debate, but it wasn't; this could have been a 
great bill, but it isn't.
  The truth is that over the course of the last days, the Senate has 
fundamentally avoided a real discussion and a real engagement on the 
subject of American education. What has happened essentially has been a 
very partisan and very political exercise. I do not believe that was 
the design of the Senator from Georgia, and I know it is not his fault. 
But I regret that, as I am sure he must regret it, because we know this 
is a bill that, in its current form, is going to be vetoed by the 
President of the United States, and I believe it ought to be vetoed by 
the President of the United States.
  I have previously said on the floor of the Senate that I do not think 
the idea of savings accounts is a bad idea, and there are ways to 
construct a savings account that makes sense. But if the Joint 
Committee on Taxation tells us, even though you can distort the figures 
and say, ``Well, X percentage of this is going to go to people in 
public school, yes, it is going to go to families whose kids are in 
public school''--it is still the high-income earners in America; the 
fact is over 70 percent of the benefits of this are going to go to the 
top 20 percent of income earners. You cannot rationalize that by 
saying, ``Well, 48 percent of it is going to go to public school people 
and 52 percent is going to go to private school people.'' The 48 
percent of public school people who are going to get it are not the 
people who most need it and not the people, generally speaking, who 
reflect the crisis of our schools.
  I come to the floor perhaps from a different place than some of my 
colleagues, because I am prepared to say the public education system of 
this country is fundamentally imploding for a lot of different reasons. 
There are wonderful bright spots, so-called blue ribbon schools. We can 
go out, pin them up and award benefits to ``Teacher of the Year'' with 
salutations in Washington--and they are marvelous teachers, 
extraordinary teachers, as are the vast majority of teachers in the 
system. But no one can deny the hard realities of what we know is 
happening in the system.

  When you look at the fact that 2.6 million kids graduated from high 
school a couple of years ago, and fully one-third of them graduated 
with a level of reading that was below a basic satisfactory reading 
level and only 100,000 of the 2.6 million had a world-class reading 
level, how can anybody in their right mind sit there and defend that 
system?
  The Brookings Institute recently released statistics that show a very 
damning reality with respect to the number of people who are teaching 
in their fields, so to speak. The number of teachers in our public 
school system who are actually teaching math who majored in math or are 
teaching science who majored in science is deplorable. It is 
extraordinary.
  It is no wonder that all across America we have parents who are 
desperate about the situation, who are trying to find ways to vote with 
their children, in a sense, by taking them out of the public school 
system and putting them into parochial school, teaching them at home, 
or putting them into a charter school and hence there is an enormous 
surge in America among our parents looking for safety, looking for a 
sanctuary for their children, looking for the certainty of adequacy of 
education.
  Everybody in the U.S. Senate ought to admit that. But having admitted 
it, the question is then, what are we prepared to do about it? What we 
are doing here has the potential to, in fact, undermine the capacity to 
fix the places where 90 percent of the children of this country go to 
school. Ninety percent of the children of this country are in public 
school today. But 90 percent of the benefit of this bill does not go to 
public schools. A minimal percentage of the benefit of this bill is 
going to go to the people who most need it, in the places that they 
most need it, for the reasons that they most need it.
  It is not enough to talk about putting more teachers into our 
classrooms if the teachers are not the right kinds of teachers, if the 
teachers do not get paid the right amount of money, if you cannot 
attract the right kinds of teachers because you do not pay them the 
right amount of money, if you do not put them in a school situation 
where there is the minimal level of safety so they can function in a 
way that does not put them at jeopardy, at risk of life and a whole lot 
of other things that are part of the problems in the public schools of 
America. We have a lot of people who are prepared to abandon that 
because of those problems rather than try to fix those problems.
  But you cannot build enough charter schools, you cannot provide 
enough vouchers to save a whole generation from the current crisis of 
education in this country for that 90 percent of our kids who are in 
public school. You cannot do it. And what this bill amounts

[[Page S3509]]

to is a Band-Aid, a tiny little Band-Aid on a system that needs triage, 
a system that is basically floundering, but part of the reason that it 
is floundering is because this is what we do.
  We come to the U.S. Senate and we do not debate the real problems of 
how you turn this system around. What do you do in a school that is 
floundering in the inner city where parents do not have the options of 
a private school, where there is no place to take their voucher, where 
there is no place for them to somehow find a place that is a sanctuary 
for their children? Do you abandon that school?
  Well, the Senator from Illinois tried to come in here and say, 
``Let's not abandon that school. Let's provide the resources to 
guarantee that that school can be fixed up and decent.'' What did we 
do? The U.S. Senate rejected that. The U.S. Senate is suggesting that 
it is OK to help those people for whom a tax benefit is a benefit, and 
if you do not get the benefit of the tax benefit, too bad. Sure that is 
going to save some kids. I do not deny that. That is really nice for 
people who can take advantage of that benefit. But what about all the 
rest of the people who are stuck in that system who do not even have a 
way of filing a tax return and getting a tax credit, don't know 
anything about an IRA, can't put away enough money to have an IRA or 
who are stuck in a system, as they are in Washington, DC, or elsewhere, 
that just does not function?
  I am going to be the first person to say that we have to talk 
differently about the whole education system. We have to talk 
differently on our side of the fence about the things that we have been 
stuck in the cement on ideologically, about things like tenure and a 
whole lot of other third rails of American politics.
  And we also have to ask our friends on the other side of the aisle to 
face the reality that those 90 percent of our children who are stuck in 
those public schools desperately need us to help them have schools that 
function, that do not freeze them out of the classroom or bake them out 
of the classroom, to give them the opportunity to be able to learn, and 
that learning is a function of a whole bunch of things.
  Every blue ribbon school I visited, the first thing I have noticed 
is, boy, do they have a wonderful principal. And almost without 
exception, that principal is operating outside of the normal workings 
of the system. They work to deal with the school committee. They work 
to deal with the parents. They work to deal even with the union, and 
teachers can be moved when they need to be moved. And, by God, you get 
a school that works all of a sudden.

  What we ought to be talking about is how we make every public school 
in the system fundamentally a charter school within the system. We 
could do that if we really wanted to. We could do that if we were not 
stuck in this sort of, gee, we are going to fight for vouchers, and we 
are going to be over here, and we are going to protect the people who 
do not like the vouchers, and, by God, we are going to talk past each 
other in the most important debate that this country has faced. That is 
what we are doing.
  This is the single most important subject in front of the country, 
because we have kids who come to school today in the first grade who do 
not even have the capacity of a first-grade level to read numbers, to 
repeat colors, to recognize shapes. And that is where the problem for 
our teachers begins, with a whole different set of children. People who 
sit there and say, ``Gee, our school system ought to be the way it was 
with the little red schoolhouse,'' are not willing to acknowledge that 
we are living in a very different world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield 4 additional minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 4 
minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. The problems that our teachers face today are different 
from anything that ever existed previously in our lives. Kids come to 
school with different baggage. And teachers are expected to perform a 
whole set of functions which they are not able to perform, which they 
have not been trained to perform, and in many cases which they are 
simply not allowed to perform because the political correctness of the 
school system or the political correctness of the school boards, and 
the politics of it, deny them the ability to be able to do the things 
that you can do in some of these other schools.
  I think people who are looking to those other schools, for example, 
are right. They are right. You have to look around to where education 
is really happening. You have to look to where kids are coming out with 
higher test scores, with better values, with a better sense of 
discipline, with a sense of order, and with opportunity in their lives.
  But why is it that we are incapable in the Senate of finding the 
ability to look for the common ground where we could find the best of 
what happens in parochial schools, the best of what happens in charter 
schools, the best of what happens in blue ribbon schools, and make it 
happen in all of our schools?
  We did not try in this debate, in my judgment, because I think the 
Senate was busy talking past each other, creating a lot of 30-second 
advertisements for campaigns and fundamentally setting up a structure 
where the kids are once again the victims of our unwillingness to meet 
these issues.
  We need a lot of fundamental reform in our school system, and I will 
speak considerably to that over the course of the next weeks. But I 
regret that in the course of this debate good ideas were left 
languishing.
  Let me give you an example. There was one amendment that passed by 63 
votes which provides incentives for States to establish and administer 
periodic teacher testing and merit pay programs. I am for that. I voted 
against it though. Why did I vote against it? Because it takes the 
money from teacher training programs for the very people who are trying 
to improve, who are in the system today, who have to have ongoing 
efforts in order to meet the standards that we want them to meet.
  So why could we not guarantee at least that we would protect the 
current structure sufficiently and find the capacity to provide the 
merit pay and have the testing? And I think that what has happened 
generally here is the process of robbing Peter to pay Paul, because we 
are unwilling to acknowledge the size and complexity of the overall 
reform effort that is necessary.
  My hope is we will come back to this effort after the President has 
gone through his effort. Or perhaps the conference committee will 
totally rewrite this with a miracle. My hope is we will come back and 
write a bill that will adequately reflect the full measure of reform 
that is necessary and, most importantly, the full measure of commitment 
to the public school system of this country.
  My friend from New Jersey said this is not a voucher system. Well, it 
is not. It is not a direct voucher system. But you cannot tell me if 52 
percent of the benefit goes to people in private schools and all of a 
sudden they are getting $2,000 instead of $500, that that will increase 
support for the public school system when they now have increased 
dollars in their pocket to send their kids to more private schools. It 
is a backdoor voucher system. It is providing a savings account that, 
in effect, has the impact of a voucher system because it strengthens 
parochial and private at the expense of the public school system and 
diminishes the base of support, the foundation for that system.
  I will vote against it. I hope the Senate will come back to have a 
real debate on education in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, in a moment I will yield to the Senator 
from New Hampshire, but I do want to point out to the Senator from 
Massachusetts that so far, until we hear from Senator Gregg, the 
Senators who have come to the floor to speak about the education 
savings account in a favorable forum were Senators Byrd, Feinstein, 
Lieberman, Cleland, and Torricelli--all Democrats. Despite the 
difficulty we have had, this has been a very significant bipartisan 
debate--not as partisan as the Senator characterized.
  We will next hear from the first Senator on our side of the aisle in 
support, No. 1.
  No. 2, you are right when you say these statistics are befuddling. 
But at

[[Page S3510]]

the end of the day, over a 10-year period over $10 billion gets saved 
in these accounts. Half goes to children who are in public schools and 
half goes to children in private. The construct of who benefits is 
identical, to the exact same people who were defined in the education 
savings account that the President and we adopted last year. It is 
identical. It is the same targeted community, same targeted community.
  The point that neither one of us can really settle, I believe it is 
statistically insignificant, the number of people --there will be some 
who will change schools because of the savings account. I think it is 
very limited. In other words, the reason that half this money--they 
represent a third of the people, but half the money in private, is 
because those folks are already paying the public school system and 
they know they have a higher tuition, so they save more.
  In that sense it skews 50/50. But it is still $5 billion going to 
public schools and $5 billion going to help students in private.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
  Mr. KERRY. That is exactly what I said in my comments: 52 percent 
versus 48 percent. That is almost even. But when you take that 48 
percent and look at their income levels, you have the largest 
percentage----
  Mr. COVERDELL. Those are the same income levels as set in the IRA for 
higher education which has been celebrated by both parties and the 
President.
  Mr. KERRY. A second point is most of those people are putting away 
for higher education because they have no place to put it in terms of 
the public school unless they might choose to spend it on a computer or 
something, but there is no proof they will do that. There is no proof 
here as to how people will be able to spend their money. I will not get 
into how you go down that road.
  The underlying component of this that is so disturbing, after you 
finish that analysis, is this, and I think the Senator from Georgia 
will have to acknowledge it. You are still leaving that vast 90 percent 
out there, most of whom in the worst situations are stuck in situations 
where this will not improve their lives, their education, their 
capacity to move forward. That is the great dilemma that so many of us 
have with this.
  As I said, I like savings accounts. I want to vote for a savings 
account. I cannot do it in the structure that has been put in this 
bill. That is my regret.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to come back to it. I did want to respond 
to the Senator. I appreciate the Senator giving me an opportunity to 
respond.
  I now yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the floor leader, and I wish to congratulate the 
floor leader for his excellent work in moving this bill forward. This 
is a very important piece of legislation for improving the quality of 
education in this country, and specifically for empowering parents to 
have more of a role in choosing how their child is educated and being 
sure their children have the resources to obtain the type of education 
which parents want for their kids. It really is not a radical idea. It 
is a very reasonable idea. So reasonable it is hard to understand why 
there would be opposition to allowing parents to be able to save more, 
to use that savings for the benefit of their children, to educate their 
children. So I certainly congratulate the Senator from Georgia for his 
excellent work in bringing this legislation.

  I wanted to speak on a couple of specifics and then generally on the 
bill. There was an opportunity which I was going to undertake, along 
with Senator Gorton, to offer an amendment to try to clarify some of 
the issues relative to IDEA, especially in the questions dealing with 
the teacher role, in dealing with children who have special education 
needs but turn out to be violent. We did pass the IDEA reauthorization 
bill last year, which I worked hard on. I was proud to participate in 
it.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Education has not followed the 
rather explicit instructions from the Congress on how regulations 
should be issued under this bill. As a result, the question of how we 
deal with the school situation involving a child who is a physical 
threat to other children in the classroom and to the teacher has not 
been properly addressed. My amendment would have addressed that. It was 
an amendment which I worked on. Senator Gorton was the prime mover of 
such an amendment earlier last year, although it was the same 
amendment.
  The issue here, of course, is making sure that such language, should 
it be brought forward, does not allow school systems to in any 
arbitrary or capricious or inappropriate way bar the special-needs 
child from the classroom. That would be absolutely unacceptable.
  I headed up a school that dealt with special-needs children, and I 
understand, I think, this issue as well as anyone who is addressing it 
here in this Senate. I am very sensitive to the importance of making 
sure that nothing happens which would undermine the capacity of the 
child who is mainstream, and who is gaining from that mainstream 
experience, to receive that experience they have under the law.
  There is also a need to address the fact that in instances of true 
physical violence, teachers, principals, other children in the 
classroom, find themselves sometimes put in a position where they have 
no way of adequately dealing with a child who is a physical threat to 
them. In fact, there have been a lot of instances which reflect this 
problem.
  Without the Department of Education addressing the issue, which it 
should have addressed, it is probably going to be appropriate to 
address the issue in some other form such as this. We decided not to 
move forward on that because we did not want to complicate this bill 
any further than it had already been complicated, and therefore we--
Senator Gorton and myself--reserved our amendment on that point.
  I must say, the special education community, which I have worked with 
rather aggressively over the years--I have been probably their greatest 
champion on a number of issues, specifically on getting funding and on 
working on the last bill--has reacted, I think, overreacted to the 
proposal. They did not see the proposal. They simply characterized it 
and went forth to inform their constituency--misinform their 
constituency would be more accurate--as to what it would have done, 
which is ironic and inappropriate considering the support I have given 
that community.
  On the second point, which was the number of amendments which we saw 
here which were an attempt to basically move dollars from this 
Coverdell approach from the A+ plan into special education, a number of 
amendments were brought forth, and specifically the Dodd amendment, 
which I wanted to address because I didn't have a chance in the 15-
minute limitation of time to respond on these points. I have led this 
fight in the Senate now for 3 years--well, actually since I got here, 
but I have actually been successful over the last 3 years--to try to 
increase funding for special education. The Federal Government made a 
commitment that it would do 40 percent of the cost in special 
education. When I arrived here, having served as Governor, that 
commitment was not being fulfilled. In fact, the Federal Government was 
only doing about 6 percent of the cost of special education.

  The fact that the Federal Government was failing to do its share of 
special education costs was having a disproportionate and unfair impact 
on the local school systems, and it was especially, in my opinion, 
putting the special-needs child and the parents of the special-needs 
child in an untenable position in local school board meetings, where 
they were being looked at as siphoning off resources from other 
activities of the school systems. They had every right to those 
resources, but unfortunately because the Federal Government wasn't 
paying the cost of that education, those resources had to come from 
other places. So the Federal Government has been totally irresponsible 
in this area of funding special education.
  As a result of my efforts and the efforts of Senator Lott, first we 
passed a commitment to fully fund special education to 40 percent, and 
we followed that up with making the Budget Act make that statement, and 
followed it up by having the first bill put forth by

[[Page S3511]]

the Republican Senate being S. 1, a commitment to full funding for 
special education. Then we followed all those words up with hard 
dollars. Two years ago, we increased the funding of special education 
by almost $700 million. We followed that up with another almost $700 
million--I think it is over $700 million in the first year. We have 
dramatically increased funding in special education, not as far as we 
need to go, but we have done that. The Republicans did that. We had no 
support from the administration on this initiative and only marginal 
support when it came to the actual votes on those budgets from the 
other side of the aisle on this initiative.
  So we have a track record of having delivered on this issue. The 
great irony here--another great irony--is that the amendments brought 
forth by the other side of the aisle were paper amendments meant to 
paper over, I think, the irresponsibility of this administration and 
the other side of the aisle on the issue of special ed because, once 
again, just a few weeks ago when we passed the budget in this body, we 
saw that the administration and the other side of the aisle were not 
willing to put their name on the line on the cause of special education 
and funding special education.
  The Republican budget increases special education by $2.5 billion. I 
don't think any Democrats--or maybe one or two--only a small number of 
Democrats voted for that budget. The President's budget that was 
brought forward and voted on in committee increased special education 
funding by a measly $35 million--$35 million. That was basically a 
nonexistent event that would have probably been used for administrative 
overhead down at the Department of Education. That $35 million probably 
would never have seen the light of day in any school system.
  So we made the commitment, and when it came to casting the vote, we 
cast the vote to increase special education funding. Now this cause has 
been taken up by the Speaker of the House, who talked about this, and 
the chairman of the House committee on this issue, and again the 
majority leader is aggressively pursuing it as well as myself. We 
intend to fulfill our obligations for special education funding as a 
Congress under Republican leadership.

  So when we saw these amendments coming at us, we had to almost smile 
at the political grandstanding of it because that is what they were, 
just political grandstanding. If those folks really want to fund 
special education, we are going to give them the chance to do that. We 
are going to be bringing bills out here that do that. I wish they had 
been there on the budget amendment. Please take those votes and those 
amendments for what they were, which was trying to paper over their own 
lack of effort in this area in the face of what was a hard action on 
our part of delivering hard dollars out to the school systems for 
assistance to special education.
  On the bill overall, what we have here is a choice between the status 
quo--and I have heard basically almost an unlimited defense of the 
status quo from those folks who oppose this piece of legislation--and 
people who want to empower parents to have more of a role in the 
education of their children. Now, I know that money is a factor in 
education. We all know that. I know that the building is a factor in 
education. I know that the number of kids in a classroom is a factor in 
education. I will tell you something. In my experience, and I think 
probably in the experience of anybody who is going to be honest, the 
single most significant impact on a child's education is the parental 
involvement and the parental activity. What this bill does is it brings 
the parents into the process more aggressively. It gives the parents a 
new tool to be able to help their children out as they try to move 
through this maze of education which we thrust at them.
  Why would we not want to do that? Well, I can't think of any reason. 
This is a parent-empowering amendment and proposal. The opposition 
really comes from people who seem to think that this threatens the 
status quo. That is where the opposition is coming from. They see this 
as a threat to some structure that presently exists out there. That has 
been the basic underlying theme of the opposition. Well, is the status 
quo so good? Is it so extraordinary and doing such a wonderful job that 
it should not be shaken a little bit? This is not a big shaking up; 
it's just sort of a little vibration. I am not sure this would appear 
on the Richter scale, but it is a significant and good step. It is a 
good step, but it is not a dramatic shaking up of the status quo. I can 
think of some things we should do to dramatically shake up the status 
quo, and hopefully we will. But this is a step in the right direction. 
It is a parent-empowering step, confronting the defenders of the status 
quo on education.
  I have to tell you, the status quo in education isn't cutting it. We 
know that as a society. Parents know it. Businesses that are trying to 
hire people coming out of our educational system know it. Regrettably, 
the world is seeing it. We have gotten to a point really where, in many 
instances, in many of our most cutting industries that are producing 
the jobs in this country, they are having to hire people from outside 
of the country because they don't have the educational expertise to do 
it, or they don't have enough educational expertise in this country. So 
the status quo is not working. We need to take some new, original 
approaches. Clearly, the proposal before us, the A+ accounts, is an 
attempt to empower parents to do something, to give parents an 
opportunity to do something to help their kids get a better education. 
What an appropriate purpose that is.
  We had a whole series of amendments and other ideas on how we should 
improve education. We had an amendment to build more schools, an 
amendment to change the teacher ratios, and an amendment to do after-
school planning. These were all nice ideas, but they don't belong in 
this body. These are ideas that belong in a school board meeting. If 
these Senators want these ideas to move forward, they should go back 
home to their school board meeting and suggest it. These are local 
control issues. We should not be taking resources out of the local 
community, sending it to Washington, draining it off from the one 
program in Washington that we are not funding, which is special ed, 
which should be funded, and sending it back to the community and say 
that they have to do this or that with those dollars. You have to build 
a building, or you have to cut down your class size, or you have to do 
an after-school program with those dollars. That is a local control 
issue. That is where it belongs, in the local school board. They make 
those decisions.
  Let's give the local communities the flexibility to have the 
resources, and let's give them the resources to have the flexibility to 
make decisions as to whether they want a new school building or new art 
course or a foreign language course, or whether they want a new teacher 
who teaches some sort of high-grade technical computer science.
  The local school board knows best on that. But for us here in 
Washington to basically be taking the resources out of the local 
community by not fully funding special education and then telling the 
local school board that we are going to send the resources back covered 
with strings and directions, and, by the way, all of the things the 
local school board traditionally has control over, but we decide to 
take them over in Washington because we know better than you do. It is 
absurd. But it is classic Washington. I am glad that all of those items 
were defeated because they should have been defeated. Let's defeat them 
and send them back to the local school board.
  Again, I congratulate the Senator from Georgia. He has brought 
forward a concept and an idea that is going to empower the parents to 
be able to help their kids get a better education. I cannot think of 
any better sentiment or any better purpose for any bill. I look forward 
to its final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of 
the Senator from New Hampshire. He was for a long time a Governor, and 
he is someone who understands the issues very adroitly. I appreciate 
very much the comments he came to the floor to make this evening.
  I conferred with the other side. Senator Gorton has another calendar 
event that he needs to attend to. So we will turn to the Senator for up 
to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am given to understand from the debate 
on

[[Page S3512]]

the floor this afternoon that I have made many new friends along with 
the Senator from Georgia. Senators on the other side of the aisle who 
were totally unable to find a good word for his bill over the course of 
the last month or two have suddenly said how desperately they wish to 
vote for his bill if it were not for the Gorton amendment having been 
added to it.
  Mr. President, the Gorton bill basically takes $10 billion a year of 
Federal money for our public schools, of which about $2 billion is used 
by bureaucrats today, and says that we prefer classrooms to 
bureaucrats. We would like to allow each State, if it wished to do so, 
to say that the whole $10 billion went into our schools rather than to 
have roughly $2 billion of it siphoned off by Federal and State 
bureaucrats.
  I suppose it is perfectly appropriate for Members of this body to 
believe that without those bureaucrats in Washington, DC, and in our 
State capitals, all of that money would be wasted; that our school 
board members, our superintendents, our principals, our teachers, and 
our parents, don't know what they are doing and that we must set 
national priorities for them and tell them there are certain things 
they must spend the money--that we have collected from them and 
returned to them--on.
  That, however, has not been the argument against the Gorton amendment 
so far. More than one Member this afternoon opposing it talked about 
how it damaged disabled children. It doesn't include the aid for 
disabled children. It is not affected by it at all. It is totally 
irrelevant to that subject. Others have said how it destroys the fight 
against drugs in our public schools, or for safety, or for mathematics 
education, and the like.
  Mr. President, it may very well be that, for example, the principal 
debater against this, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, knows more 
about what the Boston schools need than does the Boston school 
committee, but I am reasonably confident that he does not know more 
about what the Wenatchee, WA, school district needs than do the 
teachers and parents and school board members in Wenatchee, WA.

  That amendment takes about one-third of the money, $10 billion out of 
$30 billion a year that goes to the Department of Education here in 
Washington, DC, for common school education, and it says that States, 
like that system of Federal regulation and the narrow Federal 
categorical aid program, are perfectly free to retain it without 
change, but that those States that think that either their States or 
their local school districts might possibly do better without those 
Federal regulations and with more money will have that option for a 5-
year period. The State can adopt the policy under which it is the State 
educational agency that makes the determination as to how this money 
can be used, or the States can opt.
  It is my preference, and was the only option a year ago when I first 
proposed it and this amendment was agreed to, that each of the 14,000 
school districts in the United States can make those choices for 
themselves. It may be that the Wenatchee school district, or any other, 
will feel that the precise requirements and the exact amount of money 
in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act is what the Wenatchee school 
district ought to spend on that subject. But if it were allowed to make 
those choices, that school district might decide that it wanted to 
spend more money on that subject from the Federal Government, and 
perhaps in a slightly different way than the set of Federal regulations 
set out for every school district in the country, and it might, if it 
is very fortunate, decide that it could get by with less and put more 
of that money into teaching English, or mathematics, or computer 
sciences.
  Mr. President, I suppose one can say that to allow that kind of 
discretion would be disastrous to our schools; that there is no way 
that it is appropriate for us to trust those local school board members 
wisely to spend the money collected here in Washington, DC, and send it 
back for school purposes. But I believe that if there is to be an 
argument against that, it ought to be on the basis of what the 
amendment says and not the statements of those who have not read it.
  To repeat. It does essentially two things. It takes this $10 billion 
and says each State may continue the present system, may have a State-
based system or may have a local-based system for a period of 5 years, 
at the end of which time, I think, perhaps we might know a little bit 
more about what works best.
  It does something else. It says that this bill stays in effect only 
as long as Congress keeps, modestly at least, increasing the amount of 
money it puts into our schools. I would have thought many on the other 
side of the aisle would have liked that effective guarantee, a real 
incentive for us to do our job for education. Evidently, however, there 
is in this body a view not widely shared in the United States, a view 
that the present system is so close to perfect that we do not dare 
experiment with it; that we are doing so well with our Federal 
policies, that we are so successful that we should not experiment with 
them at all. For those who believe that bureaucrats are more important 
than classrooms, or at the very least that bureaucrats here in 
Washington, DC, should run our classrooms, and that they should retain 
literally billions of dollars that could otherwise be spent in the 
classroom, opposition to the amendment was appropriate and taken well.
  But for those who believe that there is not only great concern, 
perhaps the greatest concern, for children in a given part of the 
United States on the part of those children's parents and their 
teachers, their principals, their school board members, and a degree of 
competence and knowledge about what those communities and schools need, 
this amendment offers a new chance and a real experiment. It isn't 
permanent. Can I say that there is no question but that it will be a 
better system? Of course not. I think it will be. I am sure we will 
learn when there are States that accept each of these three 
alternatives.
  But to say that it is some kind of disaster, to say that without this 
guidance, without these requirements from the Department of Education 
in Washington, DC, without our wisdom, 100 Members of this body, with 
all we know about schools, that we will irretrievably damage the 
educational fabric of this country is simply wrong. I regret having 
deprived my friend and colleague from Georgia of so many friends and so 
many supporters. I strongly support his bill, as he does mine.
  But it does seem to me that there ought to be enough tolerance in 
this body, enough faith in the American system that we are willing for 
a period of time to let some States in this country try to operate 
under State-mandated rules and others to let school districts make 
their own decisions. The amendment that a small majority of this body 
passed yesterday does just exactly that, nothing less and nothing more.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me take just a couple of minutes. I 
understand that the Senator from Georgia will be yielding time to the 
Senator from Florida. But before he does that, let me take a couple of 
minutes to respond to some of what I have heard.
  There have been interesting discussions on the floor of the Senate 
about this legislation, and it is clear that different Senators see 
this issue from a different perspective. Many people come to the floor 
to talk about public education. Well, our proud tradition of public 
education began in this country in 1647. The Colonists in Massachusetts 
first developed tax-supported public schools, and we have had from that 
time on in this country an understanding about the desire and 
obligation to create a network of taxpayer-financed public schools in 
this country.
  I defy anyone to come to the floor of the Senate and show me a 
country anywhere in the world that is as successful as this country has 
been, that has produced as many scientists and engineers, as many 
mathematicians, as many well educated men and women coming from our 
public school system. In fact, even today, do you know a country out 
there that you would like to trade places with, a country with a better 
economy than ours?
  Oh, you can point to some areas where you might say, gee, this 
country has a better education system than ours. Many countries take 
only its top students and run them up the ladder and say to one group 
of students, you

[[Page S3513]]

are more appropriately going into another area, and to the best group, 
we say we are going to direct you toward higher education. And we are 
going to compare that group to the American students, the students that 
have universal opportunity. What a great tradition we have of affording 
every young boy and girl in every school entering every classroom door 
the opportunity to be the best they can be because our public education 
system gives them that opportunity.
  It is interesting to me that there is a kind of ``blame America 
first'' notion that somehow nothing works here. Again, tell me, with 
what country would you change places? I have two children in public 
schools. They are wonderful public schools. Both have wonderful 
teachers. I am enormously proud of what they are doing. They are doing 
harder work in those public schools in both grades than I did--much, 
much harder work than I did when I was in school.
  I also read to a young boy in the Everybody Wins Program. Yesterday, 
my power lunch for an hour was reading with a young third grader in a 
school here in Washington, DC. And I understand the challenges of 
different schools. Some have more resources than others. I understand 
that not all is right with our education system. We have plenty of 
challenges, some external and some internal, in our education system.

  A week ago yesterday I was in the school in Cannon Ball, ND, on the 
Standing Rock Indian Reservation--in a public school in a public school 
district with a very poor tax base. This is a school with 145 students 
and 40 teachers and staff--180 people in a school, part of which is 90 
years old and has been condemned as a fire hazard. 180 people using 2 
bathrooms and 1 water fountain; second graders, third graders, fourth 
graders, fifth graders in a choir room that is about 12 foot by 12 
foot, that they can only use occasionally because the stench of the 
sewer gas seeps into the classroom and drives them into another 
classroom. The other classrooms are only 8 foot by 12 foot in many 
cases, and the children sit in desks only a half inch apart with their 
desks touching because there is not enough room in that school and in 
those classrooms. And too many students they simply put in an open 
area, and one teacher will teach two classes at the same time by 
spending 15 minutes talking to one group and then 15 minutes talking to 
another group of students, in the same room, and by going back and 
forth all day long.
  The question I ask is, Who defends this underlying bill where we say 
here is the priority of need in education? It is a tax subsidy. The 
majority of the money from the subsidy will go to the parents of fewer 
than 10 percent of the children in this country who attend private 
schools. That is the priority of need identified in this bill. And the 
question of school construction and modernizing the school buildings so 
that the wiring will allow kids to access the Internet, those 
priorities somehow don't matter; they apparently represent some ranking 
of need well down below the tax issue.
  We are told, if we talk about the desperate repair and construction 
needs, that what we are talking about is decisions that ought to be 
made by the local school board. In this case, the local school board 
doesn't have any money. They have no tax base with which to issue bonds 
to repair this school. And there are plenty of other schools like it. 
To the second grader that I mentioned earlier this week, little Rosie 
Two Bears at that Cannon Ball school, who says, ``Mr. Senator, will you 
buy me a new school,'' I say, ``Well, we are talking about that in 
Washington, DC.''
  Can we provide some help perhaps to that school district to deal with 
school construction, to give those kids some help? It seems to me the 
people who are defending the current legislation are saying that issue 
doesn't matter to us, that ought to matter to somebody else. Crowded 
classrooms, too few teachers, crumbling schools, those issues don't 
matter to us; they belong in some other debate.
  In fact, the amendment that was offered by Senator Gorton, who just 
spoke, is an amendment that says let us take a substantial amount of 
money in the Department of Education and block grant it. That is a seed 
that comes from the same garden planted by those who want to abolish 
the Department of Education. In fact, abolishing the Department of 
Education is a part of the 1996 Republican national platform. They want 
to eliminate a national role in education, but they don't want to say 
that publicly. They don't want to offer it publicly on the floor of the 
Senate, so they do something slightly different called a block grant.
  And I say to them, if you want to do that, why be a tax collector? 
Why collect the taxes, run it through Washington and send it back in a 
block grant. That's like passing an ice cube around; all you do is get 
a smaller cube every time you pass it. If you decide that safe and 
drug-free schools is not a program of national interest and national 
importance and you want to tell the States this is not something that 
represents a national interest, it is fine if 5 schools or 5 States 
want to do it, and if 45 States want to do it, that's OK, too; we will 
send you all the money for it, and you do whatever you want. If we 
decide there is not a national interest in having safe and drug-free 
schools or title I or, for that matter, a half dozen other programs, 
then why would we collect the tax money for it and send it back? Why 
not say to the local districts, you collect the taxes and you decide 
how to spend it. That is the way the system ought to work.

  We don't run the local school boards and we should not. We have done 
some targeted financing in certain areas that have been enormously 
successful. For example, with title I we have provided specific 
investments and opportunities for the very lowest income kids in this 
country. Those investments would not have been made and could not have 
been made by the local school districts. They are very important, and I 
am enormously proud of what we have done in this and other areas.
  Do I believe we should take those programs apart and block grant 
them? Absolutely not. Why take a giant step backwards? The defenders of 
the legislation before us are the folks who come here and say, ``Well, 
gee, we should not worry about that. We are a U.S. Senate. This is not 
a national issue.''
  If education and achievement and competitiveness in the international 
arena is not a national issue--I am not talking about running the local 
schools; that is a local issue--then I do not know what is a national 
issue.
  So, I say to my friends who come here to speak in defense of the 
current bill, Rosie Two Bears was in school today in a school that in 
most cases none of you in this room would send your children to. That 
school is not going to get fixed with any help from us, despite the 
fact that President Clinton called for it in his State of the Union 
Address. I support this effort, and I think a number of others in this 
Chamber support some initiative to provide incentives to those school 
districts that don't have the opportunity and don't have the resources, 
``We are going to help you a bit,'' because we believe that any kid who 
walks through any classroom anywhere in this country ought to have the 
expectation that they are going into a room that they can be proud of, 
a room in which learning will take place, a room in which education 
will prosper, a room in which young minds will blossom. That is not the 
case today in some areas, and we know it.
  I have great respect, incidentally--I have said this on a couple of 
occasions--for the Senator from Georgia. He has handled himself with 
great skill in this debate, and I have great respect for him. However, 
we differ with respect to the priority of needs. That's the only place 
we differ. I see our priorities as very different than he does. I would 
like very much for us, if we have $1.6 billion, to debate about what we 
do with the $1.6 billion. Let us consider the range of needs that 
represent what we think are the national needs in education and then 
start at the top, pick No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3, and identify what we can 
do.
  We don't do that. We bring this bill to the floor and we say, no, we 
are not going to deal with the top priority needs. We are going to 
establish tax subsidized accounts, 52 percent of the benefits of which 
will go to parents who have fewer than 10 percent of the kids in 
schools and say that is what represents our priority of need. I just 
say to you I think this shortchanges a

[[Page S3514]]

lot of children in schools in this country. I regret that we have been 
prevented from having the kind of debate we should have had on these 
issues.
  Thirty minutes of debate on our side--30 minutes on this question of 
school construction as a national priority--because that is what we 
were told was allowed to us under the time agreement for an issue of 
significant national importance. This was not the kind of free and open 
and aggressive debate that we ought to have had on the range of 
priorities of needs that exist in education in this country today. It 
didn't happen this time. Maybe it will happen in the future. I think 
the Senator from Georgia will win this vote and lose the battle. 
Because this bill will be vetoed. But then perhaps we will be able to 
debate the entire range of needs and try to determine from that debate 
what kind of priorities we can achieve from each side.
  I am not somebody who believes only one side has wisdom. I think, 
instead of getting the worst of what each side has to offer in this 
Chamber, both can offer. The only way to do that is to have a real 
debate, not a debate based on very narrow one-sided rules, but a debate 
in which we guarantee everyone in this Chamber can bring up the best 
ideas and we can have a real competition of ideas on the floor of the 
Senate.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my good 
friend from North Dakota but, in deference to time--there will be other 
chances to do it--I am going to yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Florida. I might add, I think, as I listened to the 
Senator's remarks--he dwelled on construction. There is a key component 
of school construction in the underlying bill and its author is the 
Senator from Florida. So it is opportune that he would be here at this 
moment.
  The Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, first to my good friend from Georgia and 
to my good friend from North Dakota, I wish to express my commendation 
for the quality of debate that is taking place this evening and that 
has taken place throughout the period of consideration of this 
legislation. This is, as we will all agree, important business that we 
are about. I believe that we all start from a desire to see that the 
young people of our Nation have the best possible educational 
opportunities. We may differ on the details of how we think we can 
achieve that objective, but we should respect our individual desires to 
achieve that goal.
  It is ironic that we are having this debate on this week as we mourn 
the death of our former colleague, Senator Terry Sanford. Senator 
Sanford, in the earlier part of his career, was the distinguished 
Governor of North Carolina, from 1961 to 1965. During that period, he 
formed an alliance with the then-president of Harvard, who had written 
extensively on the needs of education in America in the postwar period. 
Then-Governor Sanford took the leadership in establishing an 
organization called the Education Commission of the States. The purpose 
of the Education Commission of the States was to assist in the national 
debate to rationalize what should be the role of the Federal Government 
and the individual States in meeting the educational needs of American 
youth.
  It was agreed by the founders of the Education Commission of the 
States, under the leadership of Governor Sanford, that the primary 
responsibility for education in America is and should be at the local 
and State level. But it was also recognized that there were important 
national goals of education which justified a Federal participation. 
What were some of those national roles? One, which was particularly 
searing at the time of Governor Sanford, was the issue of civil rights; 
that the National Government had a responsibility of assuring that all 
children had their full, legal civil and human rights protected within 
the education setting; that education should be an opportunity 
available to all American youth. The Education Commission of the States 
recognized that the Federal Government had a particular role in higher 
education, specifically in assuring access to higher education for all 
American children.
  We had just come through the period of the GI bill, at the end of 
World War II, and we were learning, as a Nation, the benefits that we 
had secured by the fact that millions of Americans who previously had 
no chance at higher education suddenly were given that opportunity and 
that that opportunity should not be limited to that one generation who 
fought and won World War II, but should be a permanent part of our 
national commitment to its own future. And a third important area was 
at-risk children, children who did not come into this world with the 
benefits and opportunities to be fully competitive and were going to 
require additional assistance because of their circumstances which were 
beyond their control.
  Those have traditionally been some of the priority areas that have 
defined what should be Federal policy for education. I believe that as 
they were in the early 1960s, they continue in the late 1990s as 
important principles to determine what should be the Federal role in 
education.
  For that reason, I am pleased with much of what is in this 
legislation, but concerned about other important provisions. I am 
concerned, for instance, about a theme that is running through several 
of the amendments that we have adopted, which essentially says that 
this thoughtful construction of a Federal role in education is no 
longer relevant, that we can treat all Federal education funds as if 
they are fungible, that they can serve any purpose that a State 
determines, that there is no longer an appropriate, focused Federal 
role in these areas such as access to higher education and at-risk 
children.
  We have adopted not just in one place but in several places 
amendments, language that says essentially, notwithstanding any other 
law or provision, that any Federal education funds can be used for the 
specific object that the authors of that amendment thought were 
appropriate.
  I do not believe that is tolerable education policy. It is not 
policy. It is the denial of a rational policy to direct Federal 
educational actions and resources.
  For that reason, I am going to vote for this bill, but I will 
announce at this point that if this bill should come back from the 
conference committee containing these what I consider to be troublesome 
provisions, I will have to vote against the conference report. I 
believe there is a sufficient amount of good in this bill that it is 
not appropriate at this stage to pronounce its death; that, rather, we 
should try, with the opportunities that will be available to us in the 
next few weeks and with the confidence that I have in a person such as 
Senator Coverdell--that we will be able to keep what is constructive 
and what is consistent with our tradition, keep those things that 
Senator Sanford would be pleased to have as part of his legacy of 
educational policy for America, and discard those that are not 
constructive and not consistent with our traditions.
  Let me focus on those areas in which I believe there is substantial 
good embedded for our education and consistent with our tradition.
  The fundamental thrust of this legislation is to increase the access 
to higher education. While much has been made of the amendment that 
bears the specific name of the Senator from Georgia as to its role in 
elementary and secondary education, if anyone looks at the actual 
numbers and how this will play out in the planning of the American 
family, the reality is that the program is going to have its principal 
utility in preparing a family to meet those enormous costs that are 
associated with higher education, and, thus, its principal contribution 
is going to be in making it possible for families to save and plan and 
prepare for the cost of college and university. And that is a good 
thing. We are going to spend approximately $1.7 billion to accomplish 
that.
  But that is not the only area in which we are going to encourage 
access to higher education. There is another provision in this bill 
which was sponsored by the senior Senator from New York, Senator 
Moynihan, which happens to have a cost over the same time period of 
approximately $2 billion, more than the cost of Senator Coverdell's 
provision.

[[Page S3515]]

  What will that provide? That will extend the current provision in the 
law that says an employer can provide higher education tuition to one 
of its employees so that that employee can increase his or her skills 
and wisdom and contribution both to the company and to his or her own 
goals, and that that employee will not have to take into the employee's 
income the value of that tuition provided by the employer.
  That is clearly a provision aimed at making more certain, more 
stable, our concept of access to higher education through cooperation 
between employers and employees.
  There is another provision which I have been active in advocating, 
and that relates to State programs through which families can purchase 
contracts to pay the tuition and, in the case of many States, the room 
and board for their child or grandchild or nephew or niece in advance 
of the time that that child is ready to enter college or university.
  These plans, which now are in place in 21 States and will add another 
13 States before the end of 1998, vary but have some similar elements. 
Those elements generally include the ability to purchase at a point in 
time the tuition for a child prior to the time that child is ready for 
college and, thus, lock in the tuition at its current level. Thus, the 
family is able to avoid tuition inflation, which has been running 
substantially higher than inflation in the general economy and higher 
than increases in family income.
  It also provides an effective means by which families can plan and 
save for that large cost. It also fundamentally changes the nature of 
the question that a child will ask as they are growing towards college 
years. They no longer will have to ask the question, ``Will I be able 
to afford to go to college?'' Instead, they will ask the questions 
``Will I be prepared to go to college? Will I work hard enough? Will I 
make adequate grades? Will I be able to distinguish myself so that I 
will be admitted to the college for which I have already made financial 
preparations?''
  I think that will be a very important step toward increasing the 
level of motivation and quality of learning.
  There has been a cloud over these plans, the plans that Senator 
Landrieu sponsored when she was the Treasurer of the State of 
Louisiana, the plans which many Members of this Senate have been 
involved with in their individual States, and that cloud was that the 
Internal Revenue Service has said these plans are taxable and, 
therefore, sent a chilling signal to States considering the 
establishment of the plan and individual families' participation.
  In the last two years, in what I think were very wise decisions, this 
Congress eliminated the taxability of the plans on an annual basis. 
That is, as the interest accrued in the account for a particular child, 
that accumulation would no longer be subject to Federal income 
taxation.
  The provision that is in this bill, which happens to have 
approximately the same cost to the Federal Treasury of $1.7 billion as 
the underlying provision of the Senator from Georgia, will say that 
when the funds are transferred at the time of commencement of college 
education from the State higher education tuition trust fund to the 
individual university to which the student is now going to be enrolled, 
that that transaction will also be nontaxable. So the family can be 
assured that every dollar that it invests, every dollar that is 
accumulated in the fund during the period that the child is maturing to 
college age, will be used for that child's education.
  I believe that with the adoption of this provision, we will find many 
more States that will establish a State plan and many more families 
than the over 700,000 who are currently participating will participate 
in this means of preparing for their child's higher education.
  At the end of the day with this legislation, we will have Senator 
Coverdell's bill which will provide one means through an educational 
savings account to prepare for higher education, we will have Senator 
Moynihan's provision that will provide for the adult who is studying 
through the financial assistance of his or her employer, and we will 
have State-based plans fully tax free providing another vehicle by 
which Americans, youth and adult, can see that they will have the 
resources to meet their goal of higher education.
  That is a good thing. That is consistent with the role of the Federal 
Government which we have established at least since the GI bill in 
World War II and the definition of the Federal role in education as 
established by then Governor Terry Sanford.
  Another issue which is a very serious one, for which Senator Dorgan 
has just made an excellent plea, is the issue of school construction. 
This is a national crisis. The General Accounting Office completed a 
study a couple of years ago which indicated the cost of bringing 
existing schools up to appropriate educational standards was in the 
range of $110 billion to $120 billion. There is not a comparable figure 
as to what is the cost of building new schools to meet the demands of a 
growing student population and to keep class size at reasonable levels, 
but the best estimate is that it is at least the equal of that cost of 
rehabilitation.

  I believe that this is an area in which the Federal Government has a 
role and needs to play a more effective partnership with the States. We 
are already doing a significant amount to assist the States. We are 
providing that States have access to tax-free financing when those 
financings are done directly to a public agency for purposes of public 
education.
  In this bill we have a provision which may be arcane but which will 
be significant, particularly to many small and rural school districts. 
And that is a provision that builds upon action taken a year ago in 
which we allow a school district that issues no more than $10 million 
per year in tax-exempt bonds to keep the difference between the 
interest that is earned as a lender of the funds prior to paying 
construction vendors and the interest which it pays to the bondholders.
  As an example, a typical school district might issue a bond issue and 
pay 6.5 percent interest to bondholders who do not have to pay tax on 
this interest received. For the period of time before it actually 
begins to spend that money to construct a school, it may be able to 
loan that money for 8.5 percent. This would allow the school district 
to keep that 2 percent differential, which is referred to as arbitrage.
  This proposal will make this arbitrage rebate exemption available to 
districts issuing up to $15 million in bonds, rather than the current 
$10 million. This will be particularly valuable to those small school 
districts who only occasionally are in the business of building that 
elementary school that they may only construct once every 50 years in 
order to meet their needs.
  Another important provision which I think will be, if adopted, the 
beginning of a new and creative approach to public education 
construction assistance from the Federal level is called the private 
activity bonds. Private activity bonds are bonds issued by a public 
agency on behalf of a private concern in order to serve a public 
purpose. These bonds today are primarily used in areas such as 
airports, seaports, mass transit facilities, water and sewer 
facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing for low-income and 
affordable housing. Those are the kinds of areas in which this type of 
financing is currently available.
  By the adoption of a provision which is in this bill, we will make 
this available for the first time to public schools. The irony is that 
under provisions that are already in effect, private schools, both at 
the higher education level and at the primary and secondary level, are 
benefiting by private activity bonds. This creates parity by allowing 
public schools for the first time to participate directly in private 
activity bonds.
  Some examples of how this might work--let me give an example that is 
currently in a stage of finalization in Orange County, Orlando, FL, 
which is the home of one of the most rapidly expanding school 
populations in the country.
  I ask if I could have 3 more minutes to close.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 3 more minutes to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
  In the Orange County school district a proposal that is close to 
becoming a reality involves the school district working with the 
private developer

[[Page S3516]]

who will build a public school which will be co-located with a YMCA 
facility. The school district would make payments on the building at 2 
percent interest for 5 years. At the end of that 5-year period the 
school district will receive the building and lease out space to the 
YMCA, a creative example of financing co-location, being able to use 
the school as a means of meeting a variety of the needs of the children 
of that community. This use of private activity bonds will accelerate 
the creativity and innovation of school districts, particularly those 
that are facing crushing demands by escalating student population. This 
provision in the legislation before us has a cost of approximately $400 
million. If I had a criticism, I would say both of these provisions, 
the one for the small and the rural schools and that for the fast-
growing schools, are inadequate to the challenge. But in the one case 
it is building on progress that we made last year, on the other it is 
starting a new departure which I think will have tremendous long-term 
benefit.
  So it is for provisions like those that I will vote for this 
legislation. It is my hope, as I indicated, that with the good will and 
effort of people like Senator Coverdell, and Members of my side of the 
aisle, that in conference we can take the ideas that are consistent 
with our tradition of a Federal role in education, build upon them, 
shape them, and bring them to the point that they can serve important, 
constructive purposes for the youth of America; with those ideas which 
may have been introduced, I would say, more for theater than for 
serious public policy, they can be discharged and will not cause the 
good ideas to be placed in jeopardy.
  I want this legislation to become law. I want to see the benefits in 
terms of access to higher education, school construction, and the other 
valuable provisions which are included in this bill to be made 
available to the children and communities of America. Therefore, I will 
vote for this legislation. And I wish it well as it moves on to the 
next stages of its journey.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge that the work of 
the Senator from Florida has been immense. All of the provisions that 
deal with school construction in the underlying bill have been 
basically the genesis of the Senator from Florida. He has been 
consistent and persistent, and I want to compliment that work here this 
evening while he is here.
  I yield the floor.


                     state prepaid tuition programs

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia in a brief colloquy to discuss extending to all private college 
prepaid tuition plans the same tax treatment that public college 
prepaid plans receive.
  Currently, 16 states, including my home state of Alabama and the 
distinguished Senator's state of Georgia, have established prepaid 
tuition plans that allow resident families to lock in today's tuition 
rates for tomorrow's education. Income taxes on the accrued interest in 
these accounts are deferred until the account is cashed in to pay for 
college and these taxes are paid at the student's tax rate, which is 
typically lower than that of their parents.
  Mr. President, as valuable as these plans are, however, there are 
drawbacks. Specifically, the plans typically cover only in-state public 
universities. Therefore, if a student decides to attend an out-of-state 
school or even an in-state private school, then the savings accrued in 
the prepaid plan are less valuable because states typically redeem only 
the principal and some nominal interest to account for inflation.
  Mr. President, as my good friend from Georgia would agree, this 
places private schools at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-vis their 
public counterparts.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes, the Senator from Alabama is correct. Under 
current law, private colleges are at a distinct disadvantage to their 
public counterparts.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the Senator's comments. I would like to 
ask the Senator from Georgia further, to clarify for me, that under 
this legislation, H.R. 2646, the A+ Education Savings Account Bill, is 
there no provision in the bill to place private college prepaid tuition 
plans on equal ground with public prepaid tuition plans?
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator from Alabama is correct. Under this bill, 
HR. 2646, the A+ Education Savings Account Bill, there is currently no 
provision that would provide the same type of tax treatment for parents 
and students to use for private college and university state pre-paid 
tuition programs.
  Mr. President, I have met with the Heritage Foundation, and informed 
them that it is my intention to work to include private colleges and 
universities into this bill in Conference so they will be eligible for 
parents and students who choose to attend these private universities 
and colleges by using state pre-paid tuition programs.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would just like to convey to my good friend from 
Georgia, that I was prepared to offer an amendment to his bill that 
would remedy this inequity, by providing private schools the same fair 
and equitable treatment as is currently provided to public institutions 
of higher learning.
  However, it is my understanding that the Senator from Georgia plans 
to work with the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Roth, and 
our other colleagues during the conference on this bill to fix this 
disparity and provide a level playing field for private universities 
and colleges. Is this a correct characterization of the Senator from 
Georgia's intention to do so?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would say to my good friend from Alabama, that he is 
correct. I am committed to fight for the adoption of this provision in 
conference.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague for 
his strong support on this issue and I look forward to working with him 
through conference and in support of this bill once it returns to the 
Floor.


                    Same-gender Education Amendment

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to engage my colleague, 
Senator Torricelli, in a colloquy with regard to my recently-passed 
same-gender education amendment to the Coverdell-Torricelli A+ bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Senator 
Torricelli and my other colleagues who voted in favor of this important 
amendment yesterday. I think the Senate's strong 69 to 29 vote in favor 
of this amendment sent a strong signal that same-gender education 
should be made available as an option to parents and their children 
enrolled in public schools. I understand, however, that you have 
additional questions about the amendment and the issue of same-gender 
education.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank Senator Hutchison, thank for setting aside 
this time today, and for her leadership on this issue in the Senate. I 
certainly share your support for making same-gender education available 
to more parents and their children. The benefits of same-gender 
education have been demonstrated in the context of private and 
parochial schools, and the evidence is strong that these same benefits 
await public education, if the legal uncertainty surrounding this issue 
were lifted.
  That is why I was pleased to support your amendment--to allow schools 
to move forward with same-gender programs, if they deem appropriate, 
and not with the fear that by doing so they risk losing federal 
financial support. Nevertheless, during the debate on your amendment, 
concern was raised as to the legal status and impact of your amendment, 
and some claimed your amendment allowing same-gender education funding 
could lead to discrimination against one sex or the other. Could you 
please elaborate as to why you believe that your amendment complies 
with both Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Equal 
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank Senator Torricelli very much for his 
statement and for his very important question. States, school 
districts, and individual public schools all over the country have 
either tried to implement same-gender programs and have been forced to 
end them, or have been dissuaded from even trying by the threat

[[Page S3517]]

of lawsuit or termination of federal funds by the Department of 
Education.
  The fundamental purpose and intent of my amendment, then, is to make 
it clear to these schools that it is the will of Congress that they be 
allowed to institute voluntary same-gender programs if they believe it 
will help further their important mission of educating students of both 
sexes. In no way, however, could this amendment possibly allow 
discrimination against either girls or boys.
  As you know, the text of my amendment is straight forward. It simply 
adds same-gender schools and classrooms as one of the allowable uses 
for federal funds under Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. As you also know, Title VI is a very flexible block-
grant program that can be used for virtually any education reform 
effort a school district wishes to try, arguably including same-gender 
programs. But in order to receive Title VI funds for a same-gender 
school or classroom, the amendment requires that school district offer, 
quote ``comparable educational opportunities for students of both 
sexes.'' This requirement is completely consistent with the 
requirements of both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. What is the opinion of the Senator from Texas on how 
Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause impact same-gender education?
  Mrs. HUTCHINSON. Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits sex-
based discrimination by any school receiving federal funds. However, by 
explicit omission, Title IX does not apply to admissions at same-gender 
public schools. This is confirmed by Department of Education 
regulations that allow public, same-gender schools, as long as 
comparable courses and facilities are offered to both sexes. That word, 
``comparable,'' is the precise word used by the Department in their own 
regulations. They do not say ``equal''--they say ``comparable.'' My 
guess as to why they chose not to use the word equal is they came to 
the same conclusion as I did when drafting my amendment--that ``equal'' 
means ``the same,'' and that requiring two or more schools or two or 
more classrooms, (same-gender or coed), to be exactly the same would 
pose a nearly impossible administrative and legal burden for any school 
official to meet. It also simply misses the point that in some respects 
the educational needs of boys and girls are different, and that these 
differences cannot and should not be ignored. An all-girls or all-boys 
school that simply ignored the fact that they were teaching only boys 
or only girls would be an exercise in futility, and educators know it. 
Enforcing some ``equalness'' standards, then, would not only fail to 
clear the way for schools to try same-gender programs, it would very 
likely ensure the end of such efforts in the future.
  I would also note that the language of Title IX simply exempts 
admissions to same-gender public schools; it does not go on to say that 
this exemption only applies if a school meets either a comparability or 
an ``equalness'' standard. So ensuring that same-sex schools afford 
comparable opportunities for both sexes, as my amendment does, in fact 
strengthens the existing protections of Title IX against gender 
discrimination in schools.
  With regard to same-gender classrooms within co-ed public schools, 
the Department of Education requires that there be a sufficient showing 
that a single-sex class is necessary to overcome past discrimination 
against one sex. But this purely agency-created requirement is nowhere 
to be found in the language of Title IX, and is in fact contrary to the 
language and intent of the statue. It seems clear that Congress would 
not allow same-gender schools but prohibit same-gender classrooms, 
absent some onerous and ambiguous showing of past discrimination. This 
defies logic and the legislative history of Title IX. So, at least with 
regard to the use of the education reform funds identified in my 
amendment, I would seek to reverse this unnecessary and overly 
burdensome department-imposed requirement.
  In fact, it was our colleague, Senator Collins, who pointed out how 
burdensome this requirement really is. She recounted how she had 
visited an all-girls math class in Presque Isle, Maine. Despite the 
tremendous results she described in terms of watching girls really 
excel at mathematics, the school was forced to undergo a host of, as 
she described them ``regulatory hoops'' in order to be allowed by the 
Department of Education to continue to foster this success among girls 
in math. This is both unnecessary and unwise if we truly want to 
encourage achievement.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. I also noted during the debate that someone cited the 
recent Supreme Court case involving the Virginia Military Institute in 
claiming that your amendment did not meet the standard for equal 
protection of the laws of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. How 
would you respond to that?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. As you know, in that case the Supreme Court struck 
down the state-supported VMI because the state of Virginia failed to, 
quote ``provide any comparable single-gender women's instituion.'' My 
amendment follows the Supreme Court's own language and requires that 
programs offer ``comparable'' opportunities for both sexes.
  I should also highlight that while the VMI case is certainly in 
keeping with my amendment, it was a case about higher education, which 
clearly involves different considerations with regard to the different 
needs of male and female students than elementary and secondary 
education. The only major case in which the Supreme Court directly 
dealt with the Equal Protection Clause as applied to K-12 education was 
in Vorchiemer, which involved a challenge to an all-girls academy in 
Philadelphia. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a Third Circuit 
ruling that this single-gender public school did not violate Title IX 
or the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The court in that case 
explicitly held that there are legitimate differences between boys and 
girls that can justify separate educational programs in order to 
provide the best education possible.
  I appreciated the questions that were raised about this amendment, 
and I sincerely wish to engage them to see how we might best address 
their concerns. I hope our discussion here today has been helpful in 
clarifying some of these questions, and I would certainly be happy to 
answer any additional questions you or other individuals may have.
  The one point I do not wish to get lost in this discussion, however, 
is that you and I and the other supporters of this amendment simply 
wish to protect single-gender education as an option. If someone is 
opposed on principle to single-gender education, that's fine. They can 
keep their children in a co-ed environment and even oppose single-
gender education when their local school board brings it up. But the 
decision will be made at the local and individual level. Parents and 
their children and administers serving the community will choose, and 
that is what this effort is all about.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator again for taking the time to 
clarify some of these points on her amendment. I look forward to 
continuing to working with you to provide families with greater 
educational opportunities.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this week the Senate has been debating a 
proposal that would enable families to invest in tax exempt savings 
accounts. The funds from these savings accounts could be used for 
educational expenses from kindergarten through college, including the 
cost of tuition at private and religious schools.
  I voted against this proposal in the Finance Committee, and I intend 
to vote against it today. If the President vetoes this bill, I will 
vote to sustain his veto.
  At first blush, this proposal sounds appealing. Why shouldn't parents 
be encouraged to save for their children's education? The problem is 
that the ``encouragement'' the proposal would provide, costs more than 
$1.6 billion over 10 years and, according to the Treasury Department, 
70 percent of the benefits go to the richest 20% of Americans. That is 
money that would be better spent on improving public schools, 
particularly low-income, urban schools where most of the problems 
exist. Also, it permits families to use funds from these tax-exempt 
accounts to pay for tuition at private and religious schools. Doing so 
would mean that the federal government is subsidizing private and 
religious education.

[[Page S3518]]

  I believe that the Federal role in education must be to support 
public schools. Nearly 90% of students attend public schools. Our 
nation's public schools are required to take children who come to 
school at any time of the year, children with disabilities, children 
whose primary language is not English, children with disciplinary 
problems, and children with low IQs.
  Private schools have the ability to select the smartest and the least 
difficult students, with the fewest challenges to overcome. Families 
who send their children to private schools typically come from higher 
income levels, yet it is these families who would receive the greatest 
benefits from education savings accounts.
  There have been a number of amendments to this bill. Some of the 
amendments that I opposed have merit, and I would like to take a moment 
to explain my reasons for voting against them.
  Senator Moseley-Braun offered an amendment that would have provided 
tax incentives to help pay for school construction. Although her 
amendment failed, Senator Moseley-Braun has been very successful in 
making us all aware of the deteriorating conditions of our nation's 
school facilities. I voted against her amendment because I believe her 
approach would be very difficult for the IRS to administer, and I have 
concerns about using Superfund taxes as an offset.

  Senator Gorton offered an amendment, and, although I have serious 
concerns about its effect, he has highlighted an important problem with 
federal education funding. I share his view that states should have 
some flexibility in spending federal education funds. They should be 
able to target these funds to schools with the greatest needs, but I 
don't agree that $10 billion should be given to the states in block 
grants without the appropriate committees holding a single hearing. 
Also, the Commissioner of Education in my state had very serious 
concerns about the impact of this amendment. Next year, when the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act is up for reauthorization, I 
hope that consideration is given to Senator Gorton's point of view and 
that appropriate hearings are held.
  I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Murray's desire to encourage 
smaller class sizes, particularly in the primary grades. In fact, in 
1987, I introduced a bill that would have created a demonstration 
program on small class sizes. Regrettably, the Labor Committee never 
held hearings on my bill. I voted against Senator Murray's amendment 
because I am concerned about providing short term federal support for 
hiring new teachers. How would the school districts pay to keep 100,000 
new teachers after the federal funding expired? This is a question 
posed by representatives from local school committees in Rhode Island 
when they visited my office earlier this year.
  Finally, I voted for Senator Ashcroft's amendment to prohibit federal 
funds from being used for national testing. Unlike many of my 
colleagues, I am not opposed to national testing. Parents should be 
able to compare their child's performance with children across the 
United States. Parents should be able to compare the performance of 
their child's school with schools across the state and throughout the 
nation. Nevertheless, I agree with Senator Ashcroft that it is 
Congress' responsibility to authorize a national testing program before 
federal funds can be used to implement such a program.
  Regardless of the outcome, we have had a good debate on a very 
important issue, namely the federal roll in education in America.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with mixed feelings that I rise 
today to oppose, H.R. 2646, the A+ Education Savings Account Act. I am 
pleased to see that we in the Senate are discussing educational issues. 
It is an important debate that the American people need to hear. 
However, I simply don't believe this bill takes our nation's education 
system in the right direction.
  One of my highest priorities is preparing Montana's children for the 
challenges of the 21st Century.
  Education is the only way to improve our economy and keep our kids 
in-state working at good jobs that help them achieve the kind of future 
we want for all Americans.
  In the area of education I have taken it upon myself to do more than 
legislate. Because legislation can only accomplish so much. I have 
worked hard to put over 350 surplus computers in Montana schools. I've 
encouraged companies to donate funding for computer hardware and 
software. I've prepared a comprehensive guide on technology funding 
which has been distributed statewide.
  My office also conducted and compiled a survey of Montana schools' 
technology needs. And I hold weekly internet chats with students 
throughout Montana.
  In working toward ensuring that every child has strong technological, 
verbal, written , math and critical thinking skills, I have visited 
over 100 schools during the last year. A lot of these schools are 
barely making ends meet. Often times teachers and principals are put in 
the agonizing position of deciding between new books or computers. New 
desks or a new furnace. While our public schools are in such straits I 
believe it is unfair to subsidize attendance at private schools.
  These institutions are charged with educating all children, not just 
those who are able to pay or who meet certain requirements.
  Public education is a mainstay of our democracy. It is the great 
democratizer of the American people. Ninety-seven percent of children 
in America attend public schools. Public education is a promise to all 
children: if you work hard and commit yourself fully, you can receive a 
quality education. And you can achieve anything.
  Public education is a promise of opportunity--a promise of open 
doors. And that is a promise which should be our number one priority to 
uphold.
  Unfortunately H.R. 2646 will not open the doors of educational 
opportunity for the average American family.
  This bill would primarily benefit those who are already most able to 
afford a private education. Those making less than $50,000 per year, 
will receive a tax cut of only a few dollars from this bill.
  Wealthier families who are in a much better position to save money, 
will have much larger accumulations of tax-free earnings.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 52% of the tax benefit 
from this bill would go to the 7% of families whose children attend 
private schools. The other 48% of the benefits would go to the 93% of 
the families whose children attend public schools. The average benefit 
to a family with children in private schools would be $37 while the 
average benefit for families with children in public schools would only 
be $7.
  Expanding the definition of qualified education expense will result 
in revenue losses of $760 million over five years and $1.6 billion over 
ten years. That's money that could be better invested in improving 
crumbling school buildings, buying computer equipment, paying teachers 
more and making classes smaller in our public schools.
  Public education faces more challenges today than ever before. But 
rather than diverting precious resources and students from our public 
schools we need to face these problems head on.
  Simply abandoning public education does a disservice to every 
American--it breaks the promises that our country is founded on.
  By any measure, the schools in my own state are doing a good job. In 
1997 Montana continued to top the nation in ACT scores (fourth highest 
in the country) and our state's SAT scores continued to be 37 points 
above the national average in math and 40 points above the national 
average in verbal skills.
  Montana, like nearly half (47%) of the states, has a policy 
prescribing class size.
  Since 1970 Montana and national student/teacher ratios have stayed 
virtually parallel, with Montana maintaining a ratio of about two fewer 
students per teacher than the national average. Beginning in the mid-
1990's Montana's statewide ratio of 14.8 students per teacher is only 
one fewer that the national average of 15.8 students per teacher. Class 
sizes in most of Montana's middle and larger sized school districts are 
roughly equal to the national average.
  Unfortunately the salary scale for Montana teachers has not kept pace 
with the national average. In 1996 our

[[Page S3519]]

educators were paid 16% less than the national average.
  Federal funding plays an increasingly important role in public 
education. After stagnating in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, 
Federal revenues now pay more that 10% of Montana's public schools 
costs; or 2% more than in 1983. Unfortunately, during this period state 
revenues committed to education have declined. In 1993, state revenues 
paid for 53.8% of school costs but have now fallen to around 49% of 
total school expenditures.
  Montana is not willing to rest on its education laurels. Our State 
Board of Public Education is evaluating new standards for math and 
reading proficiency.
  The State Superintendent of Public Instruction recently stated that 
``(i)t's time to raise the high bar on education'' by forging ahead 
with development of new standards for science and communications, 
English, writing, speech and debate.
  Rather than providing tax benefits for those who can already send 
their children to the best schools, we need to invest in education 
systems like Montana's that have a proven record of success while 
insuring that public schools that do not perform well are held 
accountable for their performance.
  We are called upon today to discuss our nation's education system. 
And I welcome the debate that all sides will give. However, I urge my 
colleagues to support public education--support the promise that we 
hold out to all children regardless of faith, race, income or ability.
  Oppose the A+ Education Savings Account Act. And hold open wide the 
door of opportunity for all America's children.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I am here today to support the A+ 
Education Savings Accounts bill the Senate is currently considering.
  Many Americans, including single mothers and low and middle income 
families, face the dilemma of how to afford the best possible education 
for their children. The A+ bill is good legislation that gives all 
families education opportunities they may not have otherwise.
  During my years as a United States Senator, I have learned that the 
true measure of the legislation we propose and pass comes from my 
constituents in Idaho. A letter from a northern Idaho school teacher 
named Brad Patzer perfectly expresses why the Senate should pass this 
bill. The Patzer family has one child in 2nd grade and the other in 
kindergarten. I would like to share with you an excerpt of Mr. Patzer's 
sentiments regarding the educational future of his two children. Brad 
wrote, ``. . . I believe that the power of choice needs to rest with 
parents and I agree that this IRA would provide more equal 
opportunities for those willing to make their children's education a 
priority.''
  The Patzers, like most parents, do not want their children's 
impending education costs to prevent them from receiving the highest 
quality education. They want flexibility to make good choices both 
about day to day K-12 educational expenses and the future enrollment of 
their children in college. This legislation accomplishes these goals.
  The A+ Education Savings plan will aid families and school districts 
all over the country. As we contemplate the rising costs of education 
many would believe those comments are solely directed to higher 
education. As we have learned in recent years, however, parents are 
having equal difficulty in paying for their kids elementary and 
secondary schooling. The A+ legislation begins by increasing the 
current contribution limit of $500 for educational IRA's to $2000. The 
scope of this IRA is also expanded to allow contributions to be used 
for day to day elementary and secondary education as well as future 
college costs. This provision allows parents to save for their future 
college expenses while at the same time covering expenses during their 
child's younger years. For example, if a family deposited an original 
$2,000 in an A+ account at the time of their child's birth, they would 
have a savings of $4,522 by the time the child reaches kindergarten. 
Another provision in this bill would establish a tax free status for 
state-sponsored prepaid tuition programs, allowing students to withdraw 
from an account, tax-free, that was established years before the 
student approached his or her college years.
  In addition, the A+ bill proposes a new, and creative method for 
constructing schools. The private sector would be allowed to use tax 
exempt financing to build schools, and would then be able to lease 
those facilities back to local school districts. After a designated 
number of years the facilities would then become the property of the 
leasing school district. In the bill's current form, Idaho is 
authorized to issue up to $10.2 million of these new type of bonds; $5 
million for wherever the need is the greatest and another $5 million 
for high growth school districts. Under the bill, however, only a few 
school districts would be eligible to utilize this bond. I have raised, 
with the floor manager of the legislation, my concern that economically 
depressed school districts, not just high growth areas, should also 
receive special consideration. To be issued, however, these bonds must 
conform to conditions imposed by Idaho state and constitutional law. 
The floor manager of the bill, the senior Senator from Georgia, has 
said he is willing to work to see whether this issue can be addressed 
when this bill goes to conference with the House of Representatives. 
The measure retains current federal law that allows school districts, 
with voter approval, to issue an unlimited amount of tax-exempt bonds 
for school construction.
  As I mentioned earlier, the A+ bill allows for the establishment of a 
tax-free savings account for each American child. It also contains a 
special provision for the use of such accounts for children with 
special needs. Specifically, the bill waives the age limit for children 
benefiting from such accounts for those students with special needs. I 
feel this is an important acknowledgment of the financial concerns 
which can come with being the parent of such a child. We reauthorized 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because we wanted to 
improve the way we educate special needs children. This provision will 
help parents expand on what we have already done.
  I would also like to thank my colleagues for their support of my 
Student Improvement Incentive Grant amendment. This amendment provides 
states with a new option for how to use their federal education 
dollars. Under my amendment, states will be able to use these funds to 
reward schools which demonstrate excellence. Such a system will help 
create competition between schools to encourage improvement in 
education. Most importantly, in creating this new option, we did not 
increase federal regulation, federal spending, or federal oversight of 
our schools.
  I support the pending legislation because it gives parents more 
financial tools to meet education needs. The bill creates educational 
savings accounts which allow parents to place as much as $2,000 per 
year, per child in a designated savings account. These after-tax, non-
government dollars would earn interest at a tax-free rate and could be 
used for education expenses (home computers, tutoring, tuition) 
associated with any K-12 school. With help of my amendment we have also 
established a precedence to raise the level of excellence within our 
schools. This legislation is not the sole answer to the future of 
America's education, however, it is a step in the right direction. I 
would urge my colleagues to recognize the significant role this 
educational savings plan could have in the future of many American 
students and their families. I would urge my colleagues to support and 
pass this legislation.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2646, 
the Education IRA Tax Bill. I oppose this bill for three reasons. First 
of all, it is does not meet the education needs of America's children. 
Second, it does not support the mission of either public or private 
education. Third, it does not meet its stated goal of providing 
economic relief to America's families.
  Mr. President, this bill is ineffective in serving the education 
needs of our children. One of my priorities as a Senator for Maryland 
is standing behind our kids. I believe this priority should also be at 
the heart of the Senate's agenda. The bill before us does not reflect 
what America's priorities in education should be.
  Let me state clearly that I believe that education should be a non-
partisan issue about what is good for our

[[Page S3520]]

kids and the future of our country. Fighting for education does not 
mean pitting our schools or our people against one another. It should 
not be about private schools vs. public schools, or wealthier people 
vs. people with more modest means of educating their children.
  This is not what education is about. This is not what the business of 
the Senate is about. We are here to do the very best we can for ALL of 
the people of America, not just a select few. We have a duty to help 
ALL of the children of America to prepare themselves for the 21st 
century.
  We need to be able to look toward a future that promotes a 
sustainable, robust economy. A key element to our future is educating 
those who will be governing our future. We need to invest in our 
children's education so that they can skillfully navigate our country 
into the ever expanding world markets. They need the skills to become 
productive members of our workforce. Our children need the educational 
tools that allow them to understand the complicated economic mechanisms 
that govern our modern world.
  While the Coverdell IRA bill purports to be a pro-education bill, it 
does nothing to improve the education of the majority of our students. 
Coverdell does nothing to ensure our kids have the tools they need to 
cope with these important issues as future leaders and hardworking 
adult citizens of our country.
  Support for public education must be the priority for federal 
investment. Coverdell represents an actual divestment in public 
schools. The Coverdell bill costs $1.6 billion dollars over the next 
ten years and gives the majority of the benefits to only 7% of the 
families with children in school. Even those benefits are meager ones. 
For example, the average family with children in private schools stands 
to benefit only $37 a year in tax exclusions.
  This $1.6 billion can be much better spent following an agenda that 
truly gets behind our kids. The Senate should support and pass 
legislation that offers real solutions to address the problems faced by 
our schools.
  Students cannot learn in overcrowded schools that are falling down 
around them. Schools in every state in this country are in desperate 
need of repair. This year, K-12 enrollments reached an all-time high of 
52 million children and they will continue to rise. It is estimated 
that we will need to build 6,000 new schools by 2006 to maintain 
current class sizes. Leaky roofs and overcrowded classrooms are the 
real problems that need to be addressed, not whether an average $37 per 
year tax benefit is what is best for Americans and education.
  We should target scarce federal resources to finance the construction 
and modernization of our public schools. These are the schools that 93% 
of our children attend. These schools will help many communities 
provide modern, well-equipped schools that can be wired for computers 
and technology so the children can get the education they need to 
succeed in the 21st century. These are also the same schools that may 
house after-school education and safety programs which our children 
need.
  We need to place our priorities on hiring new teachers. I supported 
Senator Kennedy's amendment to hire 100,000 new teachers and to make 
certain that they are well qualified in the areas we need them most.
  Under the 1994 Crime bill, we agreed to add 100,000 cops to police 
forces throughout the country. My own state of Maryland has added over 
1,200 cops--who are out in the community fighting crime. I know what a 
difference they've made in preventing crime, and in ensuring that those 
who commit crimes are apprehended. Our streets are safer because of 
this program. Think what a difference 100,000 new teachers could have 
made. I am disappointed that this amendment was not approved.
  The Coverdell bill does not meet any of these dire education needs--
for school repair, for school construction, for more teachers and 
smaller class sizes. It is silent on these critical needs.
  The Coverdell bill is ineffective in supporting the mission of either 
public or private education. I believe that public education--the 
choice of 93% of America's families--must not be shortchanged by the 
federal government. But let me be clear that I support our private 
schools as well. I am a proud product of parochial schools. What I am 
today I owe in large measure to the sisters who educated me in 
Baltimore's parochial schools. They nourished my intellect, and they 
nourished my spirit.
  So I know about the value of private schools and I support private 
schools. But I believe there are better ways to support private school 
education. The federal government already provides substantial 
assistance in support of private education. There are a range of 
federal programs that private schools can take advantage of which are 
designed to serve a variety of school student and teacher needs.
  For example, there are 366 private schools in Maryland that take 
advantage of ``Innovative Programs,'' a federal program available to 
both private and public schools. Innovative Programs supports a broad 
range of local activities in eight primary areas including technology, 
reform implementation, disadvantaged children, literacy programs, 
gifted programs and some Title I and Goals 2000 activities or programs. 
I believe that better use of the resources tied up by this bill--some 
$760 million over the next five years--could be better used through 
supporting existing programs that benefit both public and private 
schools.
  Finally, Mr. President, this legislation is ineffective in providing 
economic relief to America's families. I know how hard many families of 
modest means struggle to give their children the best education 
possible. The Coverdell bill has been presented as a tool to give these 
families some financial relief. But, that is a hollow promise. The 
average family with children in private schools would receive tax 
relief of only $37.00 a year. $37.00, Mr. President. I know that every 
dollar counts, but $37.00 a year is not going to make much of a 
difference in the average family's budget.
  The bottom line is that the education IRA will not fix our crumbling 
schools or help us bring qualified teachers into our classrooms. The 
education IRA will not bring the information superhighway to public 
schools. In fact, it will bring very little benefit to the majority of 
Americans and no benefit at all for Americans who cannot afford to 
contribute money to these savings accounts.
  For these reasons, I must oppose this legislation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to cast my wholehearted support for 
a very important piece of legislation for our children and our nation's 
future, H.R. 2646, the A-Plus Education Savings Account Act. As my 
colleagues know, this bill would provide families with the economic 
freedom to save their own money, tax-free for their children's 
elementary and secondary educational needs.
  I am excited that the Senate is about to pass a bill which addresses 
the unique educational needs of all our children while making 
significant strides toward improving their academic performance. This 
bill is an important step toward returning to parents and communities 
the means and responsibility to provide for their children's education. 
This is why I support the A+ bill and will continue to support 
innovative, flexible programs which focus on the best interests of our 
children, our future.
  As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I have consistently 
worked with my colleagues to ensure passage of this bill and have 
looked forward to the day when it would pass the full Senate.
  Unfortunately, I will be unavoidably absent for the final vote on 
this crucial education measure. I am very disappointed that the vote on 
final passage for this measure was unexpectedly delayed. If I had been 
able to be present this evening, I would have voted yes for this bill.
  Again, I want to reiterate my commitment for this bill and regret my 
absence for witnessing the passage of such a monumental measure. 
Finally, I would like to take a moment to applaud the leadership of my 
colleague, Senator Coverdell and his staff for his commitment to this 
proposal. He has fought tirelessly on behalf of our nation's children 
and should be commended for his efforts.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I encourage my colleagues to support 
legislation which will open doors to education opportunities for 
parents and children throughout our nation.

[[Page S3521]]

  Education savings accounts are a sensible step toward solving the 
education crisis in America by allowing families to save their own 
money to pay for their child's educational needs.
  This bill would empower parents with the financial tools to provide 
for all the needs they recognize in their children--needs that teachers 
or administrators should not be trusted to address in the same way that 
a parent can.
  These accounts would provide families the ability to save for extra 
fees, tutoring, home computers, S.A.T. preparation, transportation 
costs, or in cases of violent incidents, would allow a family to 
consider another public or private school.
  This kind of tax relief is especially important for parents who are 
working two jobs with no extra time to help with homework, or those who 
do not feel adequate in their own knowledge to tutor their children.
  As parents, I know that my wife and I were the best judges of our 
children's needs because we truly cared about their future.
  And as all parents realize, I knew that I was in the best position to 
address those needs.
  As a small businessman, I would have welcomed an opportunity to 
accrue tax-free interest to help pay for more opportunities in 
education for my children.
  Far too many parents find that their hopes to provide the best 
education for their children are crushed as they realize the costs 
involved in accomplishing this task.
  Contrary to popular myth, 75% of the children who would benefit from 
this bill are public school students. The new estimates released by the 
Joint Tax Committee appear to disprove the claim that public school 
revenues would be reduced by A+ accounts.
  The Joint Tax Committee estimates that by the year 2000, 14 million 
students will be able to benefit from this bill, with 90 percent of 
those families earning between $15,000 and $100,000 a year.
  This savings is not reserved for the wealthy but instead lifts the 
burden from our nation's hard working lower and middle class families.
  This bill is good for families--it's good for schools--especially 
public schools.
  Since parents would be spending their own money, it fuels parental 
involvement in their children's education.
  And because it gives them increased resources that can be used for 
education at their own child's school, it encourages parental 
involvement in the schools as well.
  Tax-free savings accounts may not fix our nation's education system, 
but they will give parents an opportunity to make a difference for 
their own children and their own community's school.
  Our tax code has always encouraged various deductions and credits for 
investment in physical capital, but why have we never encouraged 
investments in human capital?
  Education for our children is the most worthwhile investment we 
have--one that we should protect and foster growth.
  This bill is a positive step towards reform and choice in our public 
school system.
  Why anyone would vote against tax relief for America's families and 
improving education for all of our nation's children at the same time 
is difficult for me to understand.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, for introducing this 
bill.
  I believe that the working families in our states will thank us for 
handing them an opportunity to invest in their own children.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Coverdell bill. This bill will undermine our public schools and provide 
the bulk of the tax breaks to wealthy individuals.
  Mr. President, before I talk about the Coverdell bill, I want to make 
two points. First, I am not opposed to tax cuts for families which help 
them make ends meet and invest in their children. For example, last 
year I supported the $500 family tax credit and the HOPE Scholarship 
$1,500 tax credit for college tuition both contained in the 1997 
Taxpayer Relief Act. I also believe that we can enact further targeted 
tax cuts for hard working middle class families this year without 
tapping the surplus.
  Second, I am not opposed to private schools. In fact, I commend the 
teachers and administrators in private schools for their work. And I 
strongly support the mission of the private schools in my State. 
Catholic, Jewish, and other parochial and private schools provide an 
excellent education to thousands of New Jersey children.
  But I am also a strong supporter of our public school system, because 
93 percent of all children go to public schools. They come from all 
different, racial, ethnic, religious, disability, academic and 
financial backgrounds. They are generally poorer than children who go 
to private schools. They tend to live in unsafe neighborhoods--
surrounded by crime and drugs. They mostly attend schools that are in 
need of great repair. Many have no textbooks and ancient computer 
equipment that does not provide them access to the internet.
  Mr. President, these children should be our highest priority. And I 
will never give up on them.
  I strongly believe in educational equity--the ability for all kids to 
have access to an excellent education with modern facilities and 
talented teachers. But the Coverdell bill will only make our 
educational system less equitable. If we pass it, we are turning our 
backs on our public schools.
  Mr. President, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, I must tell 
my colleagues that Federal budgeting is a zero sum game. And since this 
bill effectively spends money to help private schools, we cannot spend 
more for public schools. It is that simple.
  Unfortunately, our public schools have enormous financial needs. For 
example, our schools need a tremendous amount of modernization. In 
fact, our existing school buildings are in such poor shape, the General 
Accounting Office estimated that we need to spend $112 billion on 
repairs and renovations. Fourteen million children--mostly from poor or 
inner-city school districts--attend schools that need extensive repair 
or replacement.
  But the needs of our public schools do not stop here. They need 
modern computers. They need to be hooked up to the internet. They need 
more teachers to reduce class size. That is why the President proposed 
hiring 100,000 new teachers. We also need greater funding for educating 
disabled children. And the list goes on and on. That is why the 93 
percent of all American children who attend them should be our number 
one priority.
  Mr. President, this bill is also unfair as a matter of tax policy. 
While we are awaiting final figures from the Treasury Department, I 
would like to point out the tax distribution of last year's Coverdell 
bill. Under last year's Coverdell bill, the average tax benefit for the 
richest 20 percent of all Americans would be $96. But do you know what 
the average tax benefit would be for the lowest 20 percent of all 
Americans? One dollar! One buck!
  Mr. President, this means that the richest Americans would get 
ninety-six times the tax break that the poorest Americans would get 
under the old Coverdell bill. Now, I understand that this new Coverdell 
bill is slightly modified, but I understand that the same dramatic 
inequity still exists.
  We simply should not pass a tax bill that is so skewed toward the 
rich. Any tax relief should be focused towards middle class Americans--
people who work hard to raise their families.
  Mr. President, the Democratic alternative to this bill meets part of 
our educational needs in an equitable manner. It will provide tax 
incentives for employer paid education and pre-paid college tuition 
plans that exist in many states. It also provides $22 billion for 
school modernization. This will mean that thousands of schools across 
our country will have better science labs, safer classrooms and smaller 
class size.
  If we pass the Democratic education plan, along with the President's 
proposals to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce class size, increase the 
number of tutors available and create new education opportunity zones, 
we will see real improvements in our educational system both public and 
private.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that the President has indicated that he 
will veto the Coverdell bill. It will hurt our public schools and 
provide a tax break

[[Page S3522]]

for the rich on top of it. When it comes to our public school children, 
this bill says ``let them eat cake.''
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation for the sake of the 
millions of children who walk through the public school door house 
every day and seek a solid physical and educational foundation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Might I, before I yield time to the Senator from 
Delaware, Senator Biden, inquire of the Senator from Georgia--those we 
know on our side who have requested time include Senator Biden for 5 
minutes; Senator Kennedy for 5 minutes; and Senator Daschle for 10 
minutes. That represents the list of all of those we know who will be 
here to speak.
  Could the Senator from Georgia indicate to us the list that he has so 
we might determine when we might be headed for a vote?
  Mr. COVERDELL. My list is Senator Domenici, the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico, and my closing remarks. We are 15 minutes or less. 
That would put a vote around 7:30.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if that is the case, it might be useful 
for Members to understand that some time in the next 35 minutes or so 
we might be heading toward a vote. So with that, I yield the 5 minutes 
to the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to be clear, on my time I would like to yield 
part of my time to Senator Bingaman on a Steve Schiff memorial we want 
to introduce. We will not take much time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Fine.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have listened to and been involved in 
this debate now for weeks before this got to the floor, and since it 
has gotten to the floor, and now in the final moments. And I find 
myself in an unusual position. I think the claims made by everyone on 
both sides of this issue are greatly exaggerated.
  Although I have voted against vouchers, and have voted against direct 
funding to private schools, I strongly support, and have since I got 
here in 1973, the use of the Tax Code to indirectly assist private 
schools.
  My friend from North Dakota talked about how the public schools are 
getting short shrift, but so are the private schools. The private 
schools I went to were Catholic grade schools where the average income 
I expect was lower--I know it was lower in the neighborhood I lived 
in--than the average income in the public schools. I will not belabor 
this, mainly because no one is interested and, secondly, because I do 
not have the time.
  I think when we get here on the floor and people say, this is really 
about priorities, I agree. And if the debate really were whether or not 
to spend this money for aiding higher and elementary and secondary 
education, all three--and about $300 million of this bill is for 
secondary and elementary education through the Tax Code--I would say 
that is a legitimate debate.
  The truth is, most of the people who are voting against this are 
voting against it because in principle they don't think the Tax Code 
should be used this way, period. They have no desire under any 
circumstance--and they think it is anathema to our system--to help even 
indirectly private schools.
  So I find myself in strong disagreement and in a distinct minority in 
my party on that view. Consequently, I voted against a whole lot of 
things I have supported for 20 years, because most of the initiatives 
that were brought up that I supported were in lieu of--in lieu of--this 
use of the Tax Code, this IRA, which is going to be a very, very small 
amount of money for most people, by the way.
  Then having done that--and I do not in any way suggest that the 
sponsor of this legislation had this in mind--along came an amendment 
that trumped everything for me. I have always been an extremely strong 
supporter of public schools. I have supported education for the 25 
years I have been here. With every major education initiative, I have 
played a small part, at least in my vote, along with the Senator from 
Massachusetts, who has been the leader in this body on education issues 
since I have been here.
  So along comes an amendment by Senator Gorton that essentially 
emasculates the notion of Federal participation in the education 
process in our country. I am not suggesting that he is not 
philosophically committed to the notion that there should be no 
Department of Education, that it should all be local. But, I think that 
is malarkey. I think that is absolutely ``brain dead'' in terms of what 
this country needs. That is my view.
  So now I am faced with a dilemma. I want to support this bill. But, 
in helping a little tiny bit those parents who send their kids to 
private schools--over the objection of my friend Senator Kennedy and 
others--in the process, from my perspective, I would be voting to 
emasculate the Federal responsibility in education by shifting all 
programs to a block grant.
  I find it ironic, by the way, all this talk from Republicans about, 
``We don't want any directed education programs, we want block 
grants,'' and then everyone voted for a Republican-sponsored amendment 
to create a new directed Federal Government education program which is 
not a block grant.
  At any rate, I can no longer support this bill. It really makes me 
angry with myself that I can't vote for this bill. All these years 
trying to get a little bit of fairness, in my view, for private and 
parochial schools. It is just about to happen, and I can't vote for it 
now because it undermines everything I have believed about the role of 
the Federal Government in education for the last 25 years.
  So I say to my friend from Georgia, who has been straight up with me, 
upfront with me, the whole way--our offices are across from one other--
although we met on this and strategized on this, and, I think to the 
chagrin of my Democratic colleagues, although I helped play a part in 
getting this bill to the floor, now I can't vote with him.
  Now, if you go to conference and this is dropped--that is, the 
foolishness of the Gorton amendment--and the bill comes back here 
without the Gorton amendment in it, I will vote for it and I will vote 
to override a Presidential veto. But I cannot vote for it in its 
present form.
  The reason, Mr. President, I wanted to vote for the Education IRA 
proposal is because I believe in it. I have always believed--and I 
voted as far back as 1978--that we should find some way to help 
financially those parents who wish to send their children to the school 
of their choice.
  That does not mean that I support every effort to provide tax dollars 
or tax breaks to support private education. But, I have supported--and 
will continue to support--reasonable, appropriate, constitutional 
measures that do not take money away from the public schools to help 
middle-class and lower-income families who choose an alternative to 
public schools.
  Let me also say that my support for this bill--and similar 
initiatives--should in no way be viewed as an abandonment of public 
education. Yes, there are some supporters of this bill who believe that 
there should be no Federal role in education or that the Federal 
government should not help States fund public education or that we 
should decrease our commitment to public education. I have not, do not, 
and never will subscribe to that philosophy.
  I have supported and will continue to support increasing funding for 
public schools and for programs to help the public schools--Title I for 
disadvantaged children, Goals 2000 academic standards, safe and drug 
free schools, special education, school construction, and smaller class 
sizes, to name a few examples. Public education must be our top 
priority. But, no matter how much those on both sides of this issue try 
to make it so, this is not an either-or choice--where you either 
support public education or you support families who choose an 
alternative to public schools. That is a false choice.
  Now, having said all that, Mr. President, let me explain in some 
detail why I believe it to be true--why I believe this bill is 
reasonable and appropriate, and does not undermine public education. In 
doing so, I need to review some of the provisions of this bill, which 
my colleagues are familiar with. I do this because as I have talked to 
people about this bill--and as people have talked to me--it is clear 
that there is a lot of misunderstanding about it. So, let me take a few 
minutes to explain exactly what this bill is and is not.

[[Page S3523]]

  This bill is not is a voucher bill. It does not provide a voucher or 
grant to pay for private schools. This is not a tuition tax credit 
bill. It does not give a tax write-off for the costs of tuition at 
private schools. And, this is not a bill to aid private schools. It 
does not give private schools a dime of tax money.
  What this bill does is simply say that the interest earned on a 
family's savings that are used for education will not be considered 
taxable income. Let me be more specific.
  Last year, we established Education IRAs for higher education. This 
was a proposal that I had originally introduced in 1996 as part of my 
comprehensive bill--known as the ``GET AHEAD'' Act--to make college 
more affordable for middle-class families. Under last year's tax bill, 
families can now put up to $500 per year into an Education IRA and if 
that money is later used to pay for the costs of higher education, the 
interest on that savings will not be taxed.
  This bill does two things to build on last year's law. First, it 
increases the amount that can be put into the account each year from 
$500 to $2000. Second, for families with incomes under $160,000, the 
bill allows funds in an Education IRA to be used--without having to pay 
tax on the interest--for the costs of a child's education at any 
level--elementary, secondary, or higher education--and at any school, 
public or private, or for home schooling expenses.
  There is no tax deduction for the amount put into the savings 
account. And, there is no tax deduction for the entire cost of a 
private school education. Those are myths. This bill simply says that 
interest earned on Education IRAs--which already exist for higher 
education--will not be taxed if the money is used at any level of 
education. What is the harm in that? I see none. We are simply 
expanding existing Education IRAs so that people can use their own 
money to pay for elementary and secondary education costs.
  Now, Mr. President, here is something interesting. The cost of this 
proposal is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $1.6 
billion over ten years, paid for by closing loopholes in the current 
tax law--not by taking money away from public schools. But, about $1.3 
billion of the cost is expected to result from Education IRAs used to 
help finance the cost of a higher education. Only $300 million--and, 
remember, that's over a 10-year period--would result from Education 
IRAs used to help pay for elementary and secondary education. In other 
words, less than 20 percent of the cost of this proposal is a result of 
Education IRAs being used for elementary and secondary education 
costs--what all the hullabaloo has been about--and some of that would 
be used by families with children in public schools.
  Let me repeat that. Under this bill, Education IRAs can be used to 
help families whose kids attend public schools. If parents need to buy 
their kids public school uniforms, they can use this money. If parents 
need to buy their kids a computer, they can use this money. If a child 
needs an after-school or summer tutor, parents can pay for that tutor 
using this money.
  How is that a disaster that will befall this nation's public school 
system? The answer is, it is not. That is a rhetorical exaggeration by 
opponents of this bill, who are trying to have it both ways. On the one 
hand, they claim that this bill is significant because it will 
undermine public education, and on the other hand, they argue that this 
bill is meaningless because the tax benefit for the average family, 
they claim, will be $37 per year. Which is it--significant or 
meaningless? It cannot be both.
  The truth is, this bill in the aggregate will have only a marginal 
impact. But, to some families, it will be a real help. And, so I 
believe that this bill is an appropriate way to reach a desirable 
goal--assisting parents who wish to send their children to the school 
of their choice.
  Finally, Mr. President, although I support this bill, let me say that 
I am disappointed with the way the Republican leadership chose to bring 
up this bill. I am disappointed because we did not use this opportunity 
to have a serious debate on education in this country. By any measure, 
as I just noted, this bill will have only a small impact. And, it will 
help primarily--not exclusively, but primarily--families whose children 
attend private schools. I support it out of a sense of fairness.
  But, meanwhile, there are 45 million public school children in this 
country. And, we have schools that are falling down, classes that are 
overcrowded, and children who have nowhere to go and nothing to do when 
the final school bell rings at 3:00 in the afternoon. Even if the 
Education IRA proposal becomes law--which I think it should, and I hope 
it will--it is not a fix for the problems of America's schools, and we 
should not pretend otherwise. No matter how important I think this bill 
is, it is not about making our public schools better. We could have put 
more money in building and repairing schools. We could have put 100,000 
new teachers in our elementary school classrooms to reduce class size. 
We could have funded after-school programs to help keep kids off the 
streets and away from crime. We could have done all of these things in 
addition to the Education IRA proposal. But, we did not.
  We have missed the opportunity to think big and have instead gone 
forward with a bill that gets by with something small. Nonetheless what 
is being done here is important, and I look forward to voting for it if 
the Gorton amendment is dropped.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici and Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1978 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a very important education bill 
before us today.
  It is a revolutionary education bill.
  It encompasses a major philosophical shift.
  This legislation is as significant as when we, as a society, decided 
that it was okay, in fact desirable, to teach girls to read. It is as 
big of a philosophical shift as when the Supreme Court struck down 
separate but equal schools in the 1960's.
  This bill stands for the proposition that during a time when our 
technological capability is undergoing exponential change, education 
also needs exponential change not incremental tinkering.
  To understand the magnitude of this proposed change, start with old 
adage ``follow the money.''
  The Gorton amendment takes the money and provides three different 
paths for it to follow. Instead of a myriad of overlapping programs, 
each with its own set of guidelines, principles, and educational 
commandments, states are given maximum flexibility. Flexibility not 
only on ``what'' to do with the federal education dollars but ``how'' 
those federal dollars should be delivered to states.
  States can opt to send funds directly to local school districts minus 
the federal regulations; or--states can decide they want their federal 
money to be sent to the state education authority without federal 
regulations or--states can opt to continue to receive federal funds 
under the current system.
  States are supposed to be laboratories for government experiments. 
The Gorton amendment allows this experimentation so that Congress will 
have some concrete examples and data to see how each approach works.
  This bill stands for the proposition that the best decisions 
regarding education are local decisions and this amendment gives the 
federal purse to the local decision makers.
  This bill stands for the proposition that our schools need to do 
things differently. Too many kids are merely getting ``social 
promotions'' to keep them in a class with their age group regardless of 
whether they have learned their lessons. It is a sad state when many of 
our graduates can't read the diplomas they receive at graduation.
  Too many schools don't teach the basics any more, and what they do 
teach isn't taught very well.
  Another important philosophical shift encompassed in this legislation 
is the long-overdue, common-sense revelation that it is reasonable to 
expect teachers to pass a competency test before we can expect our 
students to be able to pass tests. I am pleased that this bill includes 
a provision providing for teacher testing and merit pay.

[[Page S3524]]

  The bill now includes an amendment to provide new grants to states 
that (1) test K-2 teachers for proficiency in the subject area they 
teach and (2) has a merit based teacher compensation system.
  In line with my belief that teacher competence is key to improving 
American education, this bill creates incentives for states to 
establish teacher and merit pay policies.
  I believe the best teachers should be rewarded for their efforts to 
educate our children. A little competition in our public schools would 
be a good thing for rewarding these teachers who excel at their 
profession and motivating those who may need to improve their 
performance.
  The MERIT amendment would use the Eisenhower Professional Development 
Program (Title II) to provide incentive funds to states that establish 
periodic assessments of elementary and secondary school teachers, 
including a pay system to reward teachers based on merit and proven 
performance.
  The legislation would not reduce current funding for the Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program. Incentives will be provided to states 
that establish teacher testing and merit pay programs. The amendment 
permits the use of federal education dollars to establish and 
administer these programs.
  The Eisenhower program, established in 1985, gives teachers and other 
educational staff access to sustained and high-quality professional 
development training. In 1998, the Congress approved $28.3 million, $10 
million more than in 1997, for the Eisenhower program to provide in-
service training for teachers in core subject areas.
  The President requested $50 million for the Eisenhower program in 
1999, an increase of $26.7 million above the $28.3 million provided in 
1998. New Mexico received $2.4 million in 1997 for all 89 school 
districts. The President funds his 1999 request at the expense of Title 
VI, Innovative Program Strategies, which New Mexico also heavily 
utilizes. He requests no funding for this program, which received $350 
million in 1998.

  This is but one step forward in our bid to improve the educational 
performance of American students. This amendment supports the principle 
that all children deserve to be taught by well-educated, competent and 
qualified teachers.
  This bill also builds upon the education savings accounts enacted 
last year. It expands the amount of money that can be saved and expands 
its uses to include K-12.
  About 14 million individuals are expected to sign up for these 
accounts by the year 2002. Contributions can be saved to cover college 
expenses or used when needed to pay for a wide range of education 
expenses during a student's elementary and high school years. Examples 
of eligible expenses include text books, computers, school uniforms, 
tutoring, advanced placement college credits, home schooling, after-
school care and college preparation courses.
  A tutor can make the difference between success or a student falling 
hopelessly behind.
  A computer can open the world, as well as cyberspace to a child. 
Children growing up in homes with computers will be the achievers. I am 
afraid children growing up in homes without computers will be at a 
disadvantage. This bill will allow money from an education savings 
account to be spent on a computer, software, and lessons on how to use 
the computer.
  The bill has several solid worthwhile provisions.
  It raises the limits on annual contributions to an education IRA from 
$500 to $2,000 per year, and allows accounts to be used for K-12 
expenses. The bill allows parents or grandparents to make the 
contribution in after-tax money each year.
  The Accounts would grow with interest, and withdrawals for 
educational expenses would be tax-free. A+ accounts, as under current 
law, are targeted to middle income taxpayers. Eligibility phases out 
beginning at $95,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. 
Under these terms almost all New Mexicans would be eligible to set up 
one of these accounts.
  The bill allows parents to purchase contracts that lock-in tomorrow's 
tuition costs at today's prices. This bill would make these savings 
completely tax-free.
  Families purchasing plans would pay no federal income tax on interest 
build-up. Under current law, state-run programs allowed tax-deferred 
savings for college. However, savings in such plans, when withdrawn, 
are taxable as income to the student. This provision would benefit one 
million students.
  Twenty-one states have created tuition plans. New Mexico has not yet 
implemented one but it does have a proposal under consideration. If the 
state finalizes it pre-paid tuition plan future students would be able 
to benefit. Pre-paid tuition plans are a great way to secure the 
future.
  The bill extends through 2002, the exclusion for employers who pay 
for their employees' tuition and expands the program to cover graduate 
students beginning in 1998. The exclusion allows employers to pay up to 
$5,250 per year for educational expenses to benefit employees without 
requiring the employees to declare that benefit as income and pay 
federal income tax on the benefit. One million workers including 
250,000 graduate students, would benefit from tax-free employer-
provided education assistance provision.
  The bill also creates a new category of exempt facility bonds for 
privately-owned and publicly operated elementary and secondary school 
construction high growth areas. The bill makes $3 billion in school 
construction bonds over five years. This is enough to build 500 
elementary schools.
  I hope the Senate will complete its work quickly on this bill and 
that the President will sign it.
  Mr. President, this education bill is a revolutionary education bill. 
When you look at it on its four corners as it has finally passed the 
Senate, it is not nibbling around the edges. It is asking we make some 
fundamentally different decisions about the Federal involvement in 
public education.
  I am not sure everybody understands that the Federal Government's 
involvement is about 7 percent. So when we talk about our U.S. 
Government having an impact on education for kindergarten through 12, 
about 7 percent of the money spent in the public schools across this 
land comes from the Federal Government. That means 93 percent comes 
from the States, municipalities, counties, boroughs and the like.
  From what I can tell, the Federal Government has been doing too much 
dictating for 7 percent of the resources that they give to the States, 
too much of a heavy hand trying to dictate outcomes with very little 
money. One of the worst examples of the Federal Government's 
involvement is when we decided we should help the disabled young people 
get into the mainstream of our public schools, a wonderful idea. Then 
we said we will pay 40 percent if you pay 60 percent. To this day, to 
this night as we stand here on the floor, the Federal Government has 
paid 9 percent, yet we impose regulations. The latest ones on the IDEA 
bill that implements our desire to help public education mainstream and 
educate disabled young people, this 9 percent has for many schools 
dictated such onerous mandates that some today are willing to violate 
the law in order to get before a judge to show that some of what we are 
doing is so arbitrary that it is not even common sense.
  Now, frankly, the revolution is twofold, as I see it. One, we are 
going to take a third of our public education money and say to our 
States: You have three options. You can take this one-third of our 
funding, a number of programs, and leave it just like it is. You can 
stay with these categorical programs where we put up a tiny bit of 
money. We have bureaucracy and regulations coming out of everybody's 
ears as we try to impact on education with a little sliver of money, 
with a marvelous purpose and goal attached to it. So, one, you can take 
it and keep it that way. The other is, you can say: State of New 
Mexico, State of Alabama, you send that money right to your school 
districts to be allocated to them proportionately and let them decide 
how to use the money in the best interests of their problems. Third is 
for the State to say: We will administer the money to the school 
districts and let them spend it the way we dictate. In all events, it 
is a marvelous research project. There is no downside for our kids.
  What we are doing is not working. So for those who stand up and worry 
about

[[Page S3525]]

this new change, what is working today? Things are getting worse. We 
just had a TIMMS report that looked at our math and science kids, and 
it said the following, plain and simple: Up to the 5th grade, we are 
doing great. From 5th to 12th, we go right off the log, like the 
Titanic, into the ocean.
  We are at the bottom of the heap by the time the 12th grade arrives 
in the United States of America, the highest technology and science 
country in the world. We are sitting around worrying about one-third of 
the programs that we have been dumping on our school systems with 
highfalutin goals, and we are saying to the school systems that you can 
decide where to put that money. The other two-thirds we will leave the 
old way.
  Now, that is a revolution worth putting right before the public and 
seeing what happens. The other one is a little bit of a movement in the 
direction of merit pay and expanded teacher education. Both of them are 
revolutionary ideas and neither of them will harm anyone--in 
particular, the young people of our country. The chances are they will 
help our young people.
  I know the President is going to veto this bill, but I am as positive 
as anything that the change in public education from the U.S. 
Government will start with this bill. This bill is going to start a 
change that is going to be borderline revolutionary. We are either 
going to do more and accomplish more, or essentially we are going to 
find out why not.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 7 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican approach these days often 
seems to be ``one ideology fits all.'' They want to privatize 
everything. They want to privatize Social Security, they want to 
privatize Medicare, and now they want to privatize education, and that 
would be their biggest mistake of all.
  People ask why this bill is so important and why this debate has been 
so hard-fought. The answer is clear. This is not just another ordinary 
bill, or ordinary day, or ordinary vote in the life of the Senate. The 
Republican Party is making a massive mistake, a mistake of truly 
historic dimensions, if they turn their backs on public schools, if 
that is the clear signal they are sending the country by pushing this 
misguided bill, because its fundamental purpose is to aid private 
schools, not help public schools. We all know that public schools have 
problems, but our goal should be to fix those problems, not ignore them 
or make them worse.
  Over the past few days, the Senate has had the opportunity to correct 
the defects in this bill and direct scarce resources to the public 
schools that have the greatest need. But at every turn Republicans have 
chosen to make this bad bill even worse. The bill uses tax breaks to 
subsidize parents who send their children to private schools, and it is 
a serious mistake. It diverts scarce resources away from public schools 
that have the greatest need. It undermines the important Federal role 
in education, and it bans voluntary national tests. It does nothing to 
improve public schools. It does nothing to address the serious need of 
public schools to build new facilities and to repair crumbling existing 
facilities. It does nothing to reduce class sizes in schools. It does 
nothing to provide qualified teachers in more classrooms across the 
Nation that will be needed. It does nothing to provide after-school 
activities to keep kids off the streets, away from drugs, and out of 
trouble. It does nothing to help children reach high academic 
standards. It does nothing to improve the quality of education for 
children in public schools.

  On issue after issue, the Republican bill undermines Federal support 
for education, and that is irresponsible. We know what it takes to 
achieve genuine education reform. The place to start is by resoundingly 
rejecting this defective bill that destroys the national commitment to 
improving education for all students.
  The challenge is clear: We must do all we can to improve teaching and 
learning for all students across the Nation. We must continue to 
support efforts to raise academic standards. We must test students 
early so we know where they need help in time to make that help 
effective. We need better training for current and new teachers so that 
they are well-prepared to teach to high standards. We must reduce class 
size to help students obtain the individual attention they need. We 
need after-school programs to make constructive alternatives available 
to students. We need greater resources to modernize and expand school 
facilities to meet the urgent need of schools for modern technology and 
up-to-date classrooms.
  We cannot stand by and enact a regressive bill to help private 
schools at the expense of public schools. It is clear that our 
Republican friends are no friends of public schools. This Republican 
anti-education tax bill is wrong for education, it is wrong for 
America, and it is wrong for the Nation's future.
  Public education is one of the all-time great achievements of our 
country. Education is the key that unlocks the golden door of 
opportunity. Great leaders of a century and more ago understood that. 
They understood what may be the greatest experiment of all in American 
democracy. They insisted on free public education for all, and in doing 
so they laid the solid foundation that made this country the most 
powerful and most successful nation on earth in this century. None of 
us--no Republican, no Democrat--should retreat from that basic bedrock 
principle. Yet, this unacceptable bill does that. It hangs a sign for 
all to see on the front door of every public school in America: Abandon 
hope, all ye who enter here. Get out while you can, public schools have 
failed. Find a private school that will take you in and we will 
subsidize the cost.
  I categorically reject that view. Public schools have not failed. 
Public schools are still the backbone of American education, and they 
always will be. Let's solve their problems, not abandon them. Let's 
defeat this bill and make a fresh start to do all we can to help our 
public schools.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Would the Chair inform us as to the current status 
regarding time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats control 41\1/2\ minutes, and 
there are 8 minutes 49 seconds left for the Republicans. I heard some 
discussion earlier about yielding that back.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I am the last 
speaker on our side, and then we have one speaker left on the 
Republican side. It is with that understanding that I will yield such 
time now as I may consume.
  First of all, let me begin by commending the distinguished senior 
Senator from Massachusetts for his eloquence again just now and for his 
remarkable leadership on this debate for the last several days. He has 
been our quarterback, and he has been a real inspiration to many of us. 
I thank him, and I thank all of our colleagues who have done so much to 
contribute to this debate, who have done so in a civil way, who have 
done so in an enlightened way, who have done so with every good 
intention about raising the level of debate and talking about these 
critical issues, recognizing the significant difference of opinion that 
exists between our parties on this important matter of national 
concern.
  This debate started out as really a difference of opinion on how we 
commit about $1.6 billion in resources to education. I have noted in 
the past that I have great admiration for the Senator from Georgia and 
his interest in pursuing ways in which to improve to education. I 
differ with him strongly on this particular issue. We have noted on 
many occasions as we have made reference to his approach that the 
original design of this legislation did little to address the real 
problems we have in education. We have argued on this floor on many 
occasions whether, with $1.6 billion, we should give tax relief largely 
to those in the most successful quintile of our economic strata. I am 
told about $37 in tax benefits would go to the top 20 percent of income 
earners in our country.
  The question is, is that the best way for our Federal Government to 
commit

[[Page S3526]]

these hard-earned tax dollars? Should we provide that kind of tax 
relief, as laudable as the intentions might be and as a different an 
approach as it might be? Certainly we want to encourage saving. 
Certainly we want to find ways to reduce the overall cost to all 
American families of education. The question is, is this the right way? 
Is this the best way?
  There are those who have argued that if you do not favor the status 
quo, that this is the approach we ought to be subscribing to. Mr. 
President, I have to say, probably of all the things that have been 
said on the Senate floor with regard to this issue and this debate, 
this is the one which perhaps I feel most vehement opposition to.
  I am an ardent opponent of the status quo in many respects. I oppose 
simply accepting our current situation as fact. We know that there are 
things we can do, that we must do. In an information age, we cannot be 
content to simply sit back and say, yes, this is the best we can do. We 
can't be content when we are not number one when it comes to math and 
science. We can't be content when we know that there are people who are 
not getting a good education because we have not made the right 
commitments.
  I defy anyone to challenge those of us who believe there is a better 
way than the underlying bill that somehow we are defending the status 
quo, because that could not be further from the truth. As evidence of 
that, I guess I would suggest, No. 1, that you look at the array of 
amendments that we have offered that would have changed the status quo, 
beginning with, first and foremost, the single most consequential 
reduction in property tax that we have considered on the Senate floor, 
at least in my lifetime. As much as $10 billion in potential property 
tax relief could have been part of this legislation. In my state of 
South Dakota, we could have reduced property taxes by as much as $25 
million. If we had passed the Moseley-Braun amendment, we could have 
relieved the burden on state and local taxes, including property taxes, 
by $10 billion. We didn't have the votes. The majority voted against 
reducing property taxes by $10 billion. I want to change the status 
quo. That would have done it. That would have done it, in addition to 
recognizing the fact that three out of four school districts in this 
country have at least one school that is in dire need of repair.
  I spoke to people in a school district not long ago who shared with 
me the fact that, when the winds in South Dakota exceed 40 miles an 
hour, the school has to be evacuated. When the winds in South Dakota 
exceed 40 miles an hour, they have to go home. We had a chimney that 
fell through the third floor of one of our schools in Hartford, SD. I 
could go on and on.
  The fact is, we have an incredible problem with regard to 
infrastructure. While we legitimately commit, as we must, to highways, 
to bridges, to airports, and to the array of infrastructure challenges 
we have--and I am a strong supporter of the effort to do that--we ought 
to be committing to infrastructure for the most important part of our 
population, our children. You want to change the status quo? We should 
have voted to support the Moseley-Braun amendment. You want to support 
change in the status quo? We should have supported the after-
school program supported and offered by the distinguished Senator from 
California. You want to change the status quo? We should have 
recognized that we have to go out and find over 100,000 new teachers in 
the next 3 years. That is real change in the status quo.

  Now our Republican colleagues have come back with proposals of their 
own to change the status quo. As the senior Senator from Massachusetts 
has just acknowledged, the real question now is, do we privatize public 
education? Because that is exactly what we will do if this bill passes 
and is signed into law. We would privatize public education.
  So while we started out with a bill that promised to do very little, 
we have ended up with one that would do real damage. We've gone from 
doing almost nothing for public education to doing serious damage to 
the fundamental appreciation of the importance in democracy of 
education as we have known it for 200 years. We do damage. If this 
legislation was ever signed into law, we would do serious damage, 
because we would abolish the promise of universal education for the 
people of the United States as we have known it. This promise has been 
largely responsible for the democracy that we have enjoyed with all of 
its richness. We would abolish all remedial education for disadvantaged 
children. We would abolish safe and drug-free schools. We would abolish 
the opportunities for schools to come to the people of the United 
States asking for assistance to acquire new technology in their 
classroom. We would abolish Goals 2000, which would set some goals for 
the whole country to achieve as we recognize the importance of the 
information age. We would abolish teacher training in math and science. 
We would abolish magnet schools. We would abolish school-to-work. We 
would abolish the ability to use voluntary national achievement tests 
in order to empower parents to find out just how their students are 
doing. The abolition of all of those tools and more are incorporated in 
what we are about to pass tonight.
  Mr. President, this is a lost opportunity. Yes. But far more than 
that, during the debate on this bill, we have gone from doing little to 
doing damage--damage to our public educational system, damage to the 
opportunities that children all over this country ought to have when 
they walk into a classroom. We would abolish the national role in 
public education.
  So the question tonight that we must ask ourselves is, do we support 
the continued role of public education, recognizing, as we do, the need 
to move beyond the status quo and fundamentally and radically find ways 
in which to improve upon the tradition of public education in this 
country? Do we do that? Or do we privatize education? Do we privatize 
it and take away whatever role the people of the United States have 
when we consider our educational challenges in the years ahead? That is 
the question.
  I hope our colleagues will vote a resounding no on final passage of 
this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I'm pleased that we are moving toward 
passage of this significant bill. The importance of giving American 
families the resources and means they need to educate their children 
must be above politics.
  Before I get into the specific benefits of the bill, let me remind my 
colleagues that with the exception of several school construction bond 
provisions--which were newly added this year--all of the concepts in 
this bill should be very familiar.
  Mr. President, these concepts should be familiar because we have 
already endorsed them. The base provisions in the bill--which include 
the increase in the maximum allowable contribution to an education IRA, 
the use of the IRA for elementary and secondary school expenses for 
public and private schools, the tax-free treatment of state sponsored 
prepaid tuition plans, and the extension of tax-free treatment for 
employer provided educational assistance--all received bipartisan 
support from the Senate as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  Despite this Senate support, these provisions were dropped from the 
bill during conference negotiations. Because of opposition from the 
Administration, these particular elements failed to be included in the 
final version of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  Today we will show our commitment to these provisions--and to enact 
what this body has already determined makes good sense for American 
families.
  Mr. President, it is important to note that this tax bill is not 
designed to answer all of the education-related issues that face this 
country. Those issues are too varied and complicated to be addressed by 
the federal government. They need to be solved at the state and local 
level--by schools, teachers, and parents working together.
  Instead, this bill is designed to build on the innovative concepts 
that have been introduced in the last few years. Our goal is to improve 
the tax code so that it provides the necessary incentives to help 
American families help their children. These are much needed tools.
  Over the past 15 years, tuition at a four year college has increased 
by 234%. The average student loan has increased by 367%. In contrast 
median household income rose only 82% during

[[Page S3527]]

this period and the consumer price index rose only 74%.
  Our students--our families--need these resources to help them meet 
the costs and realize the opportunities of a quality education. The 
Senate recognized the importance of these provisions less than one year 
ago, voting in favor of them. I hope that my colleagues continue to 
recognize just how important they remain. The American people are 
counting on us.
  The various provisions of this bill are important measures that will 
aid our students and parents.
  The first major change in this bill increases the maximum education 
IRA contribution from $500 to $2,000. That increase is important on two 
levels. First, with the well-documented increase in education costs, it 
is essential that we provide American families with the resources to 
meet those costs.
  I have long argued that it is essential to change the savings habits 
of the American people, and there are few things more important than 
the education of their children. Not only will saving in this way 
increase our investment capital, it will increase American's education 
capital as well. Anything that thwarts either of these objectives is 
short-sighted.
  By using the tax code to encourage individual responsibility for 
paying for educational expenses, we all benefit. The expansion of the 
education IRA will result in greater opportunities for individuals to 
save for their children's education.
  Mr. President, the next major change that this bill makes to 
education IRAs is that it allows withdrawals for education expenses for 
elementary and secondary schools and for both private and public 
schools.
  As we recognized last year, it is a fundamental principle that a 
parent should have the right and the ability to make decisions about 
his or her child's education--to decide basic questions such as how the 
child should be educated and where the child should attend school.
  This bill recognizes that just like for secondary schools, we should 
not establish a priority system where some elementary and secondary 
schools are favored over others. We should not forget that it is the 
taxpayer who funds the education IRA--that it is the parent who puts 
his or her hard-earned money into the education IRA.
  Mr. President, it seems a matter of common sense, therefore, that the 
parent should be able to choose how to spend that money.
  Mr. President, another provision in this bill makes state-sponsored 
prepaid tuition plans tax-free, not simply tax-deferred. This is a 
significant distinction, because it allows students to withdraw the 
savings that accumulate in their pre-paid tuition accounts without 
paying any tax at all. It means that parents have the incentive to put 
money away today and their children have the full benefit of that 
money, without any tax, tomorrow.
  As I have already mentioned, forty-four states have pre-paid tuition 
plans in effect, and the other six are in the process of implementing 
such plans This means that every member of the Senate has parents and 
students back home who either benefit from this plan right now, or will 
benefit from this plan soon.
  Mr. President, the Coverdell bill also extends tax-free treatment of 
employer provided educational assistance for graduates and 
undergraduates through the year 2002.
  This particular program is a time-tested and widely used benefit for 
working students. Over one million workers across America receive tax-
free employer provided education. This allows them to stay on the 
cutting edge of their careers. It benefits not only them, individually, 
but their employers and the economy as a whole. With the constant 
innovations and advancing technology of our society, it is vitally 
important that we continue this program.
  The various provisions that I have just described are all ones that 
members of this body approved last year. They made sense then. They 
certainly continue to make sense today.
  Mr. President, the Coverdell bill does even more than address the 
costs of attending school. In response to concerns from Members on both 
sides of the aisle, the Finance Committee agreed on some measures to 
provide targeted relief in the area of school construction.
  The first provision is directed at high growth school districts. It 
expands the tax-exempt bond rules for public/private partnerships set 
up for the construction, renovation, or restoration of public school 
facilities in these districts. In general, it allows states to issue 
tax-exempt bonds equal to $10 per state resident. Each state would be 
guaranteed a minimum allocation of at least $5 million of these tax-
exempt bonds. In total, up to $600 million per year in new tax exempt 
bonds would be issued for these innovative school construction 
projects.
  This provision is important because it retains state and local 
flexibility. It does not impose a new bureaucracy on the states and it 
does not force the federal government to micro-manage school 
construction.
  Mr. President, there is a second bond provision in this bill. That 
provision is designed to simplify the issuance of bonds for school 
construction. Under current law, arbitrage profits earned on 
investments unrelated to the purpose of the borrowing must be rebated 
to the Federal government. However, there is an exception--generally 
referred to as the small issuer exception--which allows governments to 
issue up to $5 million of bonds without being subject to the arbitrage 
rebate requirement. We recently increased this limit to $10 million for 
governments that issue at least $5 million of public school bonds 
during the year.
  The provision in the Coverdell bill increases the small issuer 
exception to $15 million, provided that at least $10 million of the 
bonds are issued to finance public schools.
  Mr. President, it is clear that the Coverdell bill contains numerous 
important provisions for the American family. As I have said already, 
many of these measures are ones that the Senate passed last year.
  Anyone--students or parents--who is on the front line dealing with 
the costs of a quality education, must have been disappointed last year 
when we failed to give them all the tools that they needed. American 
families understand the need for these measures. They have now been 
waiting for a year. I am pleased today that we will, once again, 
address the needs of American families and students. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Coverdell bill.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle who made so many eloquent statements on behalf of the 
underlying bill. As is obvious, this has not been easy for them. They 
have been at odds with their Members in the caucus. We all understand 
that takes considerable courage. The Senator from Delaware, who 
explained the dilemma that he faced--and that I accept, but I 
appreciate his comity and the efforts to work through this long journey 
very much, even though he cannot vote with us at this point.
  To my adversary, the other manager, it has been a very civil debate. 
We even ended up in agreement on the reading excellence amendment. I 
appreciate the comments that came.
  I would particularly like to associate myself with the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, a very moving statement. It 
reminded me of my father. That is another relationship. He began his 
career as a coal truck driver in the Midwest. But when the Senator from 
West Virginia described the schoolroom in which that excellent mind of 
his was educated, I wish everyone could have heard it. While we all 
want excellent facilities, it isn't necessarily the key component in 
education. His came from a two-room building with two buckets of 
water. My dad's was one room. It likewise had no heat nor facilities. 
But that is for another day. I would admonish everybody to read the 
speech, though.

  Mr. President, the underlying bill is focused on children. In all 
these debates, sometimes it is buildings, it is tax policy, but at the 
end of the day what we are talking about is the desire of all of us to 
have the youth of our country be given a chance to fully participate in 
the greatest democracy in the history of the world.
  At one point in the debate I indicated that an uneducated mind is not 
capable

[[Page S3528]]

of enjoying the full benefits of American citizenship and an uneducated 
people cannot and will not remain free. A core stanchion of American 
liberty envisions a citizen who can think well and participate. When we 
deny them those opportunities, as the Senator from West Virginia 
indicated we have been doing in growing numbers, we are condemning 
these people to something less than full American citizenship. The 
first thing they are denied is economic liberty. And when they are 
denied economic liberty, which is the second stanchion of American 
freedom, they are pushed to the periphery of society and before long 
they are pushed into those components of society that are a risk to the 
safety of persons and property, another component of American liberty.
  So at the center of maintaining our democracy is the duty for each 
generation to make sure that all of its youth are capable of 
participating in American citizenship.
  It has been alleged that public education is being abandoned here. I 
would like to point out that of the economic underpinnings of this 
bill, over 90 percent of it supports public education, whether it is 
school construction, whether it is assistance through an education 
savings account to come to students that attend public schools, whether 
it is support of all of our public institutions in State prepaid 
tuition policy, whether it is aiding employers in continuing education 
for their employees. A very small component, albeit a meaningful 
component, of the funding of this bill deals with helping families 
whose children are in private schools. But it is simply wrong to 
characterize this as abandoning public education. Far from it. It is 
one of the most significant new energies behind public education we 
have seen in a long time here.
  Just to reiterate--we talked about these children--there are about 53 
million children in our elementary and secondary schools. The Joint Tax 
Committee has repeatedly said that 14 million American families will be 
beneficiaries of the savings account. That means nearly half of the 
entire population in elementary and secondary schools will receive some 
benefit. We also know that because of the work to help prepaid State 
tuition, a million university students will be helped. And we know 
250,000 graduate students will benefit from these programs that we are 
talking about here today, that 1 million American employees will 
benefit from helping employers assist them in continuing education, and 
that at least 500 new schools in high-population areas and rural areas 
will be helped here.
  This is a very large piece of legislation affecting literally 
millions of Americans across the country on the basic belief that an 
educated mind is an absolute essential requirement for full citizenship 
in this American democracy.
  Mr. President, I know we have had our differences. I think this is 
the beginning of a long debate. It could be upwards to a decade. I am 
pleased that the minority leader has agreed that the status quo is 
unacceptable. If we have at least achieved that, it has been a major 
breakthrough.
  In closing, I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
for an incredible amount of patience. The hour is near.
  On behalf of the leader, for the information of all Senators, these 
next two votes will be the last votes of the evening. The Senate will 
convene tomorrow at 10 a.m. and debate the State Department 
reorganization conference report under the parameters of the consent 
agreement of March 31. However, no votes will occur during Friday's 
session of the Senate.
  On Monday, the Senate will debate the NATO treaty beginning at 12 
noon. It is the leader's hope that we will have vigorous debate and, 
hopefully, even have a few amendments offered on Monday.
  I announce to my colleagues that the next vote will occur at 5:30 
p.m. on Monday, April 27.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage of the 
education bill.
  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 bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? 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 Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The bill (H.R. 2646), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________