[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.
____________________