[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6867-S6875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EDUCATIONAL SAVINGS AND SCHOOL EXCELLENCE ACT OF 1998--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I now ask that the Chair lay before the 
Senate the conference report to accompany H.R. 2646, the Coverdell A+ 
education bill, and it be considered under the provisions of the 
earlier consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2646), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by majority of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of June 15, 1998.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first I would like to commend the 
conferees. I would like to commend Chairman Archer of the conference 
committee. I believe they have brought to the Senate, as they did the 
House, a sweeping education reform proposal that will affect millions 
upon millions of American children trying successfully to obtain a 
quality education. They have obtained a bipartisan approach that has 
been embraced by some of the more distinguished Members of the other 
side who will speak to this. To paraphrase Senator Lieberman in the 
press conference at the announcement of the conference report, he said 
it was clear to him that the Republican leadership had reached out to 
his party and to the President, and he thought the time had come for 
their side to reach out as well. And, therefore, we now begin a 
discussion of the conference report on education reform in the United 
States.
  Mr. President, first I would like to talk, just briefly, about the 
number of people who will be affected if what is clearly going to pass 
the Senate with a very strong vote and has passed the House already and 
will be sent to the President to consider, is signed by the President. 
In the first case, some 14 million families will open education savings 
accounts who are the parents of 20 million children. Think about it. 
That is about half of the school population in kindergarten through 
high school that would be the beneficiary--half of the school 
population of the United States. These are precarious times. As we come 
to a new century, we have a new tool to use to help parents see to the 
needs of their children.
  What has always been amazing to me about this proposal--which the 
other side has pointed out almost ridiculously, but I will come to 
that--is that it is a very modest form of tax relief because it allows 
the interest buildup on these savings accounts to accrue without being 
taxed so long as the account is used for an educational purpose. The 
tax relief, therefore, for these education savings accounts over the 
next 5 years, is a little over $1 billion, $1 billion to $1.3 billion.
  What is amazing is how little incentive it takes to make Americans do 
huge things, because that limited tax relief will cause those 14 
million families on behalf of their 20-plus million children to save 
over $5 billion. Over 10 years it will cause them to save over $12 
billion. It is just amazing.
  I was just reading a report where the savings rate in the United 
States has plunged to 3.9 percent, one of the lowest levels in a half a 
century. So this becomes win/win, because not only does it cause 
Americans to save, and large sums of money, but it is for education, 
the Nation's No. 1 problem by everybody's account as we come to the new 
century.
  It does a lot of other things as well. The conference report will 
help over 1 million students deal with the costs of higher education 
because it helps qualified State tuition programs and protects them 
from tax burdens, and that makes them more valuable. Over 1 million 
students will benefit from this; 21 States already have these plans and 
17 have them under consideration. It has a component in the conference 
report which came out of the Senate Finance Committee, which will help 
over 1 million employees expand their continuing education. It will 
help 1 million employees seek continuing education because it will 
allow employers to spend up to $5,250 on behalf of an employee's 
continuing education, and it is not seen as taxable income to the 
employee. So over a million employees will benefit from it.

  It has an arbitrage rebate exception for public school bonds, which 
will help the construction of public schools.
  The provision that was inserted in the Finance Committee from Senator 
Graham, which I believe is a very good provision which would be broader 
on school construction, did not become a

[[Page S6868]]

part of the conference report, I am sorry to say. I hope I will be able 
to work with the Senator from Florida to expand that at another day.
  It includes a provision that was adopted by the Senate with 100 
votes, the Reading Excellence Act, which authorizes a literacy program 
which focuses on training teachers to teach reading with scientifically 
proven methods like phonics. The House passed similar language 
unanimously, and the President of the United States endorsed this bill. 
So here we have a provision that received total bipartisan support and 
has been endorsed by the President of the United States.
  It retains the same-sex school provision of Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison of Texas, which makes it an allowable use of Federal 
education dollars to fund education reform projects that provide same-
gender schools and classrooms as long as comparable educational 
opportunities are offered for students of both sexes.
  It keeps the Senate-passed measure, Teacher Testing Merit Pay, by the 
Senator from New York; Dollars to the Classroom, which requires 95 
percent of Federal education dollars to find their way to the 
classroom, by the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson; the 
Student Improvement Grant Program, offered by the Senator from Idaho, 
Senator Kempthorne; a multilingualism study, by Senator McCain; and 
SAFE Schools, by Senator Dorgan.
  Mr. President, in deference to the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
who has now arrived, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank very much the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia for his courtesy. Let me once again applaud and 
congratulate him for the leadership he has provided in this matter of 
education, of helping us to show our parents throughout this country it 
is within reach financially. I think this legislation would never have 
reached this point had it not been for his active leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Federal Government has a responsibility 
to promote policies and programs that make quality education accessible 
to students, to their parents, and to their families. Today, students 
and parents are under an enormous burden when it comes to paying for 
education. There is serious and legitimate concern about the 
accessibility of quality schools and teachers and materials necessary 
for success.
  And costs continue to rise.
  With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 we succeeded in helping parents 
and students prepare for and even offset some of the escalating costs 
associated with higher education. For example:
  We created an education savings IRA to allow parents to save for 
higher education.
  We expanded the tax-deferred treatment of State-sponsored prepaid 
tuition plans.
  We restored the tax deduction on student loan interest.
  We extended the tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational 
assistance.
  And, we established tax credits--the HOPE scholarship and the 
Lifetime Learning Credite--for students to use in connection with their 
education.
  Each of these measures goes a long, long way toward helping our 
students and their families handle the financial burden associated with 
college life.
  But, Mr. President, we did not go far enough. Personally, I would 
like to have seen more powerful measures. The Senate version of the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 actually contained stronger provisions, but 
they were dropped as part of the conference agreement.
  I firmly believe in those stronger measures and so I introduced them 
as a separate bill on the very day that we passed the Taxpayer Relief 
Act. My objective then was the same as it is today--to help American 
families afford the costs of a quality education.
  I proposed to push the education IRA from its $500-a-year limit to 
$2,000 a year, and to allow withdrawals for elementary and secondary 
school; to make tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational 
assistance permanent and to reinstate it for graduate education; and to 
make State-sponsored prepaid tuition programs tax free, not just tax 
deferred. These were my objectives as 1997 came to a close, and I am 
happy to say that we have succeeded in adopting many of them with this 
bill, the Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998.
  This bill comes out of the Senate Finance Committee with bipartisan 
support. As I already indicated, the distinguished Senator from Georgia 
has played a leading role in helping shepherd this important piece of 
legislation through the Senate. Our bill allows families to increase 
their contributions to education IRAs from $500 to $2,000 per year. Not 
only will the $2,000 per year IRA contributions be available for 
college, but they can be used for students at any level--from 
kindergarten all the way through college.
  As such, the education IRA will be a tremendous asset to parents and 
students in grade schools and high schools. The money will be available 
to help cover the costs associated with both public and private 
schools. And the money can be used for a multitude of necessities--from 
buying school uniforms or books to purchasing a new computer.
  The bill also makes prepaid tuition programs tax free, meaning that 
students will be able to withdraw on a tax-free basis the savings that 
accumulate in their prepaid tuition accounts. Parents will have the 
incentive to put money away today, and their children will have the 
full benefit of that money tax free tomorrow.
  These innovative proposals will be a boon to higher education--to our 
students and families. Already, 44 States have prepaid tuition programs 
in effect.
  The other six have legislation to create a State plan, or they have 
implemented a feasibility study. Such programs will become increasingly 
more attractive to parents and students, as will individual retirement 
accounts that allow them to meet the educational needs of their family.
  As I have said before, these measures are an important step forward. 
They are important for our families--for our students--for the future. 
With this legislation, Congress is demonstrating its leadership on 
education.
  It is a very, very important step in the right direction. And I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Again, let me thank my distinguished colleague for his leadership and 
his courtesy in letting me make my statement at this time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I also extend my thanks to the chairman 
of the Finance Committee for his untiring support and patience 
throughout the long deliberations and for his contributions not only to 
this education program we have before us but in the area of financial 
relief and encouragement to American families for years and years and 
years.
  Mr. ROTH. Thank you.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am going to yield up to 10 minutes to 
my distinguished colleague from New Jersey. Let me just say, as the 
principal cosponsor of this education reform package we now have before 
the Senate, he has worked tirelessly, and not always under the best of 
circumstances, and has been a remarkable contributor to both the form 
and the shape and the final substance of the legislation we now have 
before us.
  I yield up to 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague and friend 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
yielding me time, but more than that, for his leadership in the course 
of this Congress to bring to the floor of the Senate, in its final 
form, the A+ savings accounts.
  I also congratulate the conferees for settling what were some real 
differences in bringing now, in this final form, the A+ savings 
accounts in such a manner, I believe, that on a bipartisan basis 
Senators can be both pleased and proud to lend their support in final 
passage.
  Mr. President, upon passage in the Senate of the A+ savings accounts, 
seven Democratic Senators joined with me in writing the majority 
leader, expressing our concern that amendments offered by Senator 
Ashcroft and Senator Gorton presented some real difficulties to 
Democratic Members of the Senate in being able to vote for the 
conference report.

[[Page S6869]]

  These two amendments would have either prohibited national school 
testing, which has been a priority of the Clinton administration, or 
transformed educational funding by the Federal Government into block 
grants to the States.
  Many of us have believed that block granting many of these worthwhile 
programs would have placed in jeopardy important Federal initiatives in 
secondary education. And eliminating testing would have prevented 
milestones in education which the Clinton administration thought were 
so important.
  It is important for Democratic Senators to know both amendments, in 
an effort to obtain genuine, broad-based bipartisan support, both 
amendments are not contained in the conference report. The conference 
report for A+ savings accounts now is the Coverdell-Torricelli bill as 
originally proposed. That is why I believe, as we are coming to a vote 
tomorrow, this legislation deserves bipartisan support.
  There is nothing here that every Democratic Member of this Senate 
cannot enthusiastically support and embrace. Indeed, with all respect 
to my friend, the senior Senator from Georgia, in its purist form this 
is an idea consistent with Democratic Party philosophies. It is, in 
fact, everything that President Clinton offered last year with regard 
to the financing of higher education. Senator Coverdell is simply now 
applying that to grade school and secondary school education.
  What a simple idea. How basic. American families can save their own 
money, in their own savings accounts, without taxation, to educate 
their own children in the school of their choice. What possible 
argument could anyone have with that proposal? And yet people have 
found reason to object: first, that it undermines the public schools. 
On the contrary, not only does it not undermine the public schools, the 
Joint Committee on Tax is arguing that 70 percent of all of the 
families who will save money in these accounts for their own children 
will use it on behalf of public school students. As designed by Senator 
Coverdell, this money will be available for afterschool tutoring of 
public school students, ironically, hiring public schoolteachers, 
afterschool activities, computers, school supplies, uniforms of public 
school students.

  This does not only not undermine the public school system, it 
strengthens it by bringing new resources.
  The second argument is that, if this is done, it may not hurt the 
public schools but it is done to help a privileged few. On the 
contrary; the income limitations used in this legislation of $110,000 
to $140,000 are the same the Senate used last year in establishing 
savings accounts for colleges. It is believed that 75 percent of all 
the money in these savings accounts will be saved by families with 
incomes of less than $70,000 a year. This is a middle-income program to 
help working families educate their children--public or private.
  Then the argument is made, maybe it doesn't undermine the public 
schools, maybe it isn't just for a privileged few, but it doesn't help 
everybody. It doesn't help everybody. It doesn't help high-income 
people who are not below the income limitations, and if truth be told, 
families with no income, the very poor, will not be able to save money.
  One warning I received upon entering a career in the U.S. Congress 
is, never make the perfect the enemy of the good. I know of no 
legislation in any form, in any endeavor, by any Senator, which helps 
everybody all the time. Any Senator who comes to this floor looking for 
that legislation will live a frustrated life in the U.S. Senate.
  Suffice it to say, millions of American families, millions of modest 
background who simply have a child in a public school but would like 
them to have a home computer, their child is in public school but they 
would like them to be able to stay in after school and participate in 
activities that cost money; they are in an urban school but they would 
like, under mandatory programs, to get their child a school uniform, 
buy extra books--this program does work for them. And for those 10 
percent of American families that send their child to a private school, 
a parochial school, the yeshiva, because they believe that is best for 
their circumstances, it helps to ease the burden of their tuition, it 
is straightforward, it is direct, and, mostly, it is right for the 
country.
  I will concede that, while I enthusiastically support this proposal, 
this Congress has not been everything it should have been for 
education. The President challenged the Senate that, from school 
testing to the reconstruction of our schools to class size, this 
Congress should have dedicated itself to improving the quality of 
American education. And it did not. But it has produced this one idea. 
It may not be the best idea, it is certainly not the only idea, it will 
not transform American education, but that does not mean it is not a 
good idea that can help.
  I have often believed, in the current state of American education, 
that everybody has something to offer and there are many good ideas. 
Everything is defendable in American education except one thing--the 
status quo. This challenges the status quo. For the first time in a 
long time, we are opening the possibility that American families can 
all see themselves as involved again. If you could change one thing, in 
my judgment, in education today, it would be the belief that families 
are relevant again to educating their own children. This is no longer 
simply something in the hands of government, a school board, a union, 
Washington, or a State capital; we are responsible for the education of 
our own children.
  Senator Coverdell has established that on every child's birthday, 
every grandparent, every aunt and uncle, can be relevant again. They 
can look at a child they care about and, rather than a meaningless toy, 
rather than some worthless gift, there is an account. Perhaps you would 
like that child to have a computer, reading materials, participate in 
afterschool activity; they are struggling in math or science and they 
would like to have a tutor. Put money in their account, at Christmas or 
at any time of the year. Let the extended family be involved on the 
front lines of educating that child.
  Beyond that family, when a labor union sits across the table from a 
great American industrial employer and they have settled on pension 
benefits and they have settled on health benefits, let that labor union 
leader have one more question: How about a contribution to the savings 
account to help educate the children of my membership?
  No, it is not going to solve every problem, but we estimate that this 
proposal will bring $12 billion of private resources to the education 
of American children. That can't be wrong. It cannot be wrong--$12 
billion of new money is now available to help our children in their 
secondary school education.
  If, at the end of the day, its critics are right and all this money 
is not used for public education or private education but remains in 
these accounts, then we believe, our critics taken at face value, the 
worst that could happen is, this money is rolled over into savings 
accounts for college--meaning that not only will we be provided this 
option for secondary school education, but the money will then become 
available for college education--ironically, in accounts established 
under the leadership of President Clinton and supported on a bipartisan 
basis in this Senate.
  I believe this will pass the Senate. But more significantly, Senator 
Coverdell has introduced this Senate into an important and dramatic new 
debate. We Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservative, will 
be in a competition in the redesign of American education. No better 
opportunity, no more timely debate, could be visited upon this Congress 
than this new competition. It is important. It is worthwhile. If we 
succeed, we will redesign American education.
  Senator Coverdell has made a valuable addition in beginning this 
debate. I congratulate him for it. I look forward tomorrow, when we 
both will return to this floor, to introduce this final debate in 
enacting A+ savings accounts.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, before the Senator from New Jersey 
leaves, there has been no more eloquent spokesperson for these reforms 
than he.
  You alluded, Senator, to the gift from the grandparent, but you 
introduced the debate with the suggestion this could be a form of union 
negotiations, which I think it would.

[[Page S6870]]

  I just want to point out two points: The $12 billion we cite is not a 
calculation of the first dollar that would come from outside sources, 
which makes this savings account unique--that a union, a company, a 
neighborhood, a church, anything, could adopt a child with a savings 
account. None of that money is in the calculation of the $12 billion, 
and there is no way to estimate, but I believe it will match ultimately 
the parents' contribution of the $12 billion.
  The second point I make is that those who have more difficulty saving 
because of their income strata will have these outside sources, which 
is one of the reasons for the sponsor contributions that will help open 
those accounts for those families who have more difficulty.
  As the Senator said, we will not get to all of them, no, but a lot 
that otherwise would have no opportunity for one of these kinds of 
accounts to be opened.
  The last thing I mention, you talk about parent involvement. What 
better reminder to the parent about the condition of the child than 
when they get that booklet and look at it once a month and get a notice 
from the savings and loan, or from the bank, that says how much is in 
the account, how much is building up for Johnny or Susie, once a month 
or once a quarter? Fourteen million-plus families will be reminded that 
we have some work to do here. I think the benefits of that cannot be 
calculated, and that the bonding begins to occur every time one of 
those accounts is open. I thank the Senator.

  I yield up to 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I commend Senator Torricelli for his 
comments on this bill and for his efforts, as well, throughout this 
entire process. I say to my friend, Senator Coverdell, again, that this 
would not have happened if it hadn't been for his commitment to this 
idea, his persistence, and his willingness to, in essence, say it will 
never end until we pass it. So I commend him for the effort he has made 
all throughout these months.
  This bill will enable working families to keep more of what they 
earn, and it includes a number of other important education provisions.
  My focus during this debate has been on providing every classroom in 
America with a competent, caring, and qualified teacher. In my opinion, 
teachers make all the difference in the learning process.
  America's classrooms are staffed with many dedicated, knowledgeable, 
and hard-working teachers. Nevertheless, in classrooms all over 
America, teachers are being assigned to teach classes for which they 
have no formal training.
  Consider these statistics: Twenty percent of English classes were 
taught by teachers who did not have at least a minor in English 
literature, communications, speech, journalism, English education, or 
reading education. That is one out of five. Twenty-five percent of 
mathematics classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in 
mathematics or mathematics education. That is one out of four. Thirty-
nine percent of life sciences or biology classes were taught by 
teachers without at least a minor in biology or life science. Fifty-six 
percent of physical science classes were taught by teachers without at 
least a minor in physics, chemistry, geology, or earth sciences. More 
than 50 percent of history or world civilization classes were taught by 
teachers who did not have at least a minor in history. Students in 
schools with the highest minority enrollments have less than a 50-
percent chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who holds a 
license and a degree in the field that he or she teaches.
  The amendment I introduced, along with Senator D'Amato, provides 
incentives for States to test their teachers on the subject matter they 
teach and to pay their teachers based on merit and proven performance. 
In light of the statistics I mentioned before, it is clear that teacher 
testing is necessary and important.
  Our amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 63-35, and I am pleased 
that it is included in this conference report. The Congress should be 
proud of this bill and the efforts we have made to promote responsible 
education policy. I hope this bill will receive broad bipartisan 
support.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his hard work and 
dedication on this bill.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for 
his contribution to the legislation that passed the Senate and the 
legislation before us in the conference report. He has made the point 
repeatedly that the No. 1 tool for effectiveness in a classroom is a 
teacher. His work, with regard to perfecting who that teacher is, is to 
be noted. I thank the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. President, I now yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report 
to the Educational Savings and School Excellence Act. First of all, 
before I make my comments, I recognize the leadership of the Senator 
from Georgia, as my previous colleagues have done. I think he has done 
a tremendous job in bringing forward the issue of education and what we 
can do as parents, as Senators, what we can do as school board members, 
as State legislators, or whatever, to begin to think of innovative ways 
in which we can improve our educational system. There is no doubt in my 
mind that we need to have some innovative solutions.
  The reason I am supporting this conference report is because this is 
an innovative approach that involves parents, as well as school board 
people. It is going to broaden the effort in education. It is going to 
benefit all schools, whether it is private schools or public schools.
  I want to take a few moments to sort of review the history of the A+ 
accounts. Maybe my colleague has already done that, but I think it is 
very important that we do that. In doing this, I am going to urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting these new opportunities that we are 
going to be creating for children and their families to receive the 
best possible education.
  Now, reviewing the history a little bit, last year, we authorized 
educational savings accounts for those individuals who were going to 
postsecondary education, going on to colleges and vocational schools 
after graduating from high school. Beginning last June, we introduced 
this opportunity to more American families by adopting an amendment to 
the Taxpayer Relief Act, which established education savings accounts. 
Now, this amendment passed, but it was dropped from the Taxpayer Relief 
Act bill, due to a veto threat.
  Senator Coverdell's A+ savings account was introduced as a separate 
bill, and it was passed this spring by a vote of 56-43. I was delighted 
with the outcome of that vote. Following the recent conference 
agreement on the Educational Savings and School Excellence Act, I am 
confident that we have before us a bill that makes sense for all 
families and children--those who seek private or public education.
  The conference report was passed by the House last week, and it is 
our turn to pass this bill and hand the President a new opportunity to 
improve education.
  I would like to go over a few provisions of the Educational Savings 
and School Excellence Act, putting forth the A+ accounts. Our 
legislation increases the dollar amount from $500 to $2,000, the amount 
that parents can set aside to save for their children's education for 
both public and private elementary and secondary school expenses.

  With the education savings account, the money is never Government 
money, so issues of Government intervention and the constitutionality 
of using Government funds for religious schools is not a real argument 
in this debate.
  This bill would empower parents with the financial tools to provide 
for all of 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.
  This bill would allow families, single parents, or anyone earning 
less than $95,000 annually to deposit up to $2,000 per child in after-
tax income into those interest-bearing savings accounts each year.
  The option for using these funds are simply endless. Raising a child 
is expensive--we all know that as parents--

[[Page S6871]]

whether the child is attending a private school or a public school. My 
children happen to have attended public schools and I will be the first 
to admit that education is expensive. This bill will help parents save 
for computers, tutoring expenses--if you have a child with special 
needs--uniforms, transportation--if you are in rural areas and you have 
special transportation needs out there--SAT prep courses, so they can 
get ready for higher education, postsecondary education, or even 
tuition for private schools.
  Now I would like to go over a few reasons why I am supporting this 
legislation. I think this bill is simply good news for all students--
especially those in public schools.
  This legislation does not ignore any school whatsoever. Numerous 
provisions have been included to improve public education, as well as 
private education. It assists smaller schools by increasing the amount 
of school construction bonds that smaller school districts can use. It 
provides incentives for public schools to strive for higher academic 
achievement. It encourages teachers to improve literacy programs by 
training them to use proven methods, such as phonics. It will help 
students stay in school by authorizing a national dropout prevention 
program. To make schools more safe, we have included a provision that 
allows weapons brought to school to be used as evidence in any internal 
school disciplinary proceedings.

  In addition, the bill includes the provision to make savings in 
qualified State tuition plans completely tax free. These tuition plans 
are powerful incentives for parents to save for their children's 
college education.
  My State of Colorado is one of 21 States that has already implemented 
this kind of program. I can tell you from what I have observed in my 
State of Colorado, it is catching on, and it is popular.
  This bill would free up plan holders from having to pay Federal tax 
on interest buildup. This means more savings for tuition, room, board, 
and books or supplies. Tax relief for these plans offers yet one more 
reason to support this conference report.
  This bill is about freedom. It is about education. Let's take a step 
forward in improving our Nation's education system for all American 
children. I encourage my colleagues to join me in passing the Education 
Savings and School Excellence Act today and to support the conference 
report.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator was describing the chronology of the 
account. He hit on a very important point that I want to reinforce. The 
Senator from New Jersey did it well. That is, last year, with the 
President's cooperation, Congress initiated and he signed an education 
savings account that was only $500, and only for higher education. This 
proposal, according to the description of the Senator from Colorado--
which is correct, I might add--says that we will make the $500 go up to 
$2,000. You can save four times as much. You can use it for higher 
education or for any grade, kindergarten through high school.
  This has taken what we celebrated with bands and celebrations on the 
White House Lawn last year and made it broader. It is not just $500 for 
higher education now, it is $2,000. It is not just for higher 
education, it can be used for kindergarten all the way through high 
school, or higher education. We use the identical criteria that we used 
to determine which middle-class families could use it. It is the same.
  Am I properly describing the point that the Senator made?
  Mr. ALLARD. The Senator has properly described it.
  Again, the thing that excites me so much about this particular piece 
of legislation is, it is for all students. Traditionally, this has 
always been thought of in terms of postsecondary--actually, through 
graduation from high school. But now in this particular piece of 
legislation, we are thinking in terms of kindergarten, first grade, 
second grade, which gives a lot of flexibility to parents to decide 
what is the best educational plan for their students, by bringing this 
plan and incorporating the money that can be used for many, many 
different purposes. It might be that there is a special-education 
student out there who needs some special help because of some 
deficiencies, needs some special help because of deficiencies in 
hearing or maybe sight; maybe a rural family has some problem with 
transportation.
  This flexibility is going to help education, whether it is private or 
public schools. I think it is going to improve the general educational 
effort. The real benefactor in all of this is going to be public 
education, because it is going to be supportive of what we are already 
doing in education. It doesn't take away from public education, it adds 
to it.

  I want to compliment the Senator from Georgia on working so very hard 
on this issue and his leadership. I think it is something that we can 
all be proud of.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, just to expand on what the Senator from 
Colorado said, we talked earlier about the 14 million families that 
would save up to $12 billion. And those dollars can be used for any 
educational purpose. As the Senator from Colorado alluded, it can be a 
computer, it can be a special learning problem that requires special 
attention, or it can be an afterschool program. I call this money 
``smart money.'' What I mean is that this money will ultimately go 
right to the target of the child's needs. A lot of money in public 
education can't do that, understandably, with buildings, turning on 
lights, and paying salaries. But this money will be guided almost like 
a missile system right to the problem the child has. And it is being 
guided by those who know best what that problem is--their parents. So 
the exponential value of this money is much greater than most education 
dollars can achieve.
  Mr. President, I would like to take just a few minutes to sort of 
underscore why education has become the No. 1 issue in our country and 
take us back 15 years ago to Secretary Bell, who was President Reagan's 
first Education Secretary. He had this Department of Education publish 
a book that became known as ``A Nation At Risk.'' That is the name of 
the publication. It described a general condition and warned the Nation 
that we are developing a vast problem in our academic system. But it 
focused primarily on kindergarten through high school.
  It is interesting to look at where we have come since he notified 
America and the education community that we have a problem.
  In that report, ``A Nation At Risk,'' it said international 
comparisons of student achievement reveal that on 19 academic tests, 
American students were never first and never second; and, in comparison 
with other industrialized nations, we were last seven times.
  In 1998, 15 years later, a recently released study shows that 
American 12th graders ranked 19th out of 21 industrialized nations in 
mathematics and 16th out of 21 in science. In other words, we were 
never first 15 years ago, we were never second, and we were last seven 
times. After 15 years of effort, we are 19th out of 21; we are not even 
close to first or second. And we are 16th out of 21. In other words, we 
have gone backwards.
  Fifteen years ago, 23 million American adults were functionally 
illiterate, according to the report. And in 1992, 20 percent of the 
adult population had only rudimentary reading and writing skills. That 
is going in the wrong direction. Fifteen years ago, 13 percent of all 
17-year-olds in the United States were considered functionally 
illiterate, and functional illiteracy among minority youth may run as 
high as 40 percent. The literacy level of young adults aged 15 to 21 
dropped 11 points from 1984 to 1992, and 25 percent of all 12th graders 
scored below basics in reading on the 1994 National Assessment of 
Educational Progress.
  Fifteen years ago, ``A Nation At Risk'' reported that between 1975 
and 1980 remedial mathematics courses in public 4-year colleges 
increased 72 percent and then constituted one-quarter--25 percent--of 
all mathematics

[[Page S6872]]

courses taught in these institutions. They were saying, in 4-year 
colleges, one quarter of all mathematics courses dealt with remedial 
education. In 1995, 30 percent of first-time college freshmen enrolled 
in at least one remedial course and 80 percent of all public 4-year 
universities offered remedial courses.

  In other words, Mr. President, in every one of these categories, one 
after the other, the warning given to us in 1983, 15 years ago, has not 
caused us--I know it has caused us to spend millions and billions of 
our dollars, but the point is, as the Senator from New Jersey said a 
moment ago, the status quo is unacceptable, and the status quo produced 
results, after having received the warning 15 years ago, that are worse 
than they were 15 years ago. It is very alarming, the recent study that 
said only 4 out of 10 students in inner-city schools can now pass a 
basic math exam, and if you take all the schools and put them together, 
we get it up to only 6 out of 10.
  We cannot accept this. Innovation is being begged for.
  If we allow this to continue, for the first time in America--America 
has never had a caste system. There has always been massive mobility in 
economic achievement--people on the bottom rung moving up, people on 
the top moving down. It has been the story of America. But if we keep 
putting people on the street who cannot read and write, and if we spend 
another 15 years like we have the last 15, we will produce a permanent 
economic caste system in the country and we will forever change the 
nature of this great Republic. We will forever change it if we ever 
accept a condition by which thousands upon thousands, millions of 
students come out of high school and cannot effectively read or write.
  How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Georgia has 1 
hour remaining on his side.
  Mr. COVERDELL. That cannot be correct. We had 2 hours equally 
divided, and I think we began at about 5:20. So I would estimate we 
have about 5 minutes remaining on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Today he has 5 minutes 
remaining. Tomorrow he has 1 hour.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I see. OK. I understand the point. Tomorrow we have 
another 2 hours equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I see we have been joined by the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts, who will be arguing the other side, and for his 
benefit I will go on another several minutes here.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts will endeavor to infer 
that this undermines public education, and the Secretary of the 
administration has inferred as much. It is just absolutely incorrect. 
Mr. President, 70 percent of the 14 million families, 11 million 
families who open these accounts will have students in public schools, 
as the Senator from New Jersey noted. Because they are in public 
schools at the end of the day and this money is divided, the families 
who have children in public schools will represent about half the $12 
billion that is saved over the next decade, and the families who have 
children in private schools will save the other half.
  That is understandable, because the families who have made a decision 
to send their child to a private school know they have to save more. 
But the bottom line is, 70 percent of the families will have kids in 
public schools, 30 percent in private. Fifty percent of the money will 
support children in public schools, and 50 percent will support 
children in private schools or home schools.
  The other side will try to infer that this is a voucher. Vouchers are 
the redistribution of public money. The money going into these savings 
accounts is aftertax dollars, and the only tax benefit available is 
that the interest earned would be forgiven of tax so long as the 
dollars were used for an educational purpose. This is not a voucher.
  Several people on the other side have suggested that this is 
insignificant, that it is not a great amount of money, and they are 
right. The tax incentive is minimal over the 10-year period, but what 
is stunning about it is how much it causes these American families to 
save on their own--new money. No board of education has had to raise 
the millage rate. There is no new State income tax. There is no new 
Federal income tax. This is the flow of the volunteer money to help 
students in public, private, and home schools.
  The other side likes to infer from time to time that this only 
benefits the wealthy. Seventy percent of the money would go to families 
earning $75,000 or less, and we get into all kinds of arguments over 
which families are what. But I would only make this point, that the 
determination of who can open these accounts and who benefits from them 
is middle class driven, and in this legislation we are discussing in 
the Chamber right now, the criteria are identical to the criteria that 
were designed by the other side last year, for what really was a 
minimal savings account of up to $500 to help families for higher 
education only. And we have said, well, let's expand that; let's let 
them at least save $2,000, and let's let them use it for any school 
year--kindergarten all the way through college; let's give them more 
opportunity and more flexibility.
  But the families involved are identical to the families who 
celebrated last year on the White House lawn when the President signed 
legislation that created a $500 savings account just for college. And 
here we are today, saying, let's make it $2,000 for college or any 
other grade.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from the great State of Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senator from 
Georgia in bringing the legislation to where it is at the present time 
out of the conference. I admire his persistence, but I believe he is 
fundamentally wrong in his approach to education.
  I want to just mention very briefly, when I arrived over here, the 
good Senator was talking about the Nation At Risk report. I was in the 
Senate when the Nation At Risk study was done. We had very extensive 
hearings on it. The Nation At Risk was primarily a report done by a 
superb group of education leaders. While I was listening to my friend 
from Georgia, I was harkening back to the various recommendations of 
those who had done that extensive study to which the Senator referred.
  The fact of the matter is, the Nation at Risk report authored by a 
bipartisan commission, made recommendations that mirror the 
recommendations that were made by the President of the United States 
this year. With all respect to the Senator from Georgia, there is no 
reference in there about the tax breaks and voucher programs that he 
has described. What was recommended in the report is the hard work that 
has been recommended by, not only the Nation At Risk panel, but most of 
the educators since that time.
  What we need is more and better teachers. This is very important, 
particularly given the fact we are going to need some 2 million more 
teachers over the period of the next 10 years. The Nation At Risk 
commission thought that upgrading the skills of teachers is one of the 
most important things we can do. They also said that raising standards 
for children so they will be challenged to meet their highest 
educational ability, instead of dumbing down the curriculum to the 
lowest expectations.
  The Nation At Risk report recommended that we devote more time for 
learning. That means afterschool programs and extended day programs. 
And we know that spending more time on learning works. In my own State 
of Massachusetts, the Timility Middle School in Roxbury, MA, was long 
known for its low test scores and high suspension rates for students. 
Under Project Promise, the school extended learning time by 90 minutes 
4 days a week and opened for 3 hours on Saturday. The result is more 
students receive the help they need, parents are more involved, student 
attendance is up, student absence is down, reading and math scores have 
improved--by investing in public schools, not abandoning them.
  In addition, there is general recognition that you cannot teach 
children in antiquated schools or schools that are falling apart--yet 
so many of the nation's schools are. In fact, the GAO

[[Page S6873]]

found that over $100 billion is needed for help and assistance to 
rebuild and modernize our schools in our cities, suburbs, and rural 
communities.
  But the Coverdell bill will spend $1.6 billion over 10 years. Is that 
going to solve all of the problems that have been outlined by my friend 
from Georgia? That is quite a stretch, particularly because it doesn't 
help the public schools.
  The Coverdell bill is not trying to give support for these kinds of 
initiatives that are facing communities across this country, with many 
of these children who are sons and daughters of working families who do 
not have the ability and resources to be able to put aside the money 
that would be necessary in this program.
  In Waltham, MA, 215 math teachers are learning innovative techniques 
in teacher training programs. They are working with bankers, engineers, 
high-tech experts, and college math professors to learn more about 
math, how to teach it well, and how to link it to the real-world 
experience of the students.
  The early indications are that when these teachers go back to their 
schools, they are seeing improved academic achievement from the 
students. But under the Coverdell bill, we won't get any kind of help 
and assistance for these kinds of innovative programs that are taking 
place. This legislation does nothing to support innovative programs 
like these. It does nothing to strengthen public schools. Instead, it 
uses a regressive tax policy to subsidize vouchers for private schools 
and gives no significant financial help to working families and no help 
to children in the Nation's classrooms. What it does is provide an 
unjustified tax giveaway to the wealthy and to private schools.
  Public education is one of the great success stories of American 
democracy. It makes no sense for Congress to undermine it. Yet this 
bill turns its back on the Nation's longstanding support for public 
schools and earmarks tax dollars for private schools. It is an 
unwarranted step in the wrong direction for education, for public 
schools, and for the Nation's children. It would spend the $1.6 billion 
over the next 10 years on subsidies to help the wealthy pay the private 
school expenses they already pay and do nothing to help the children in 
the public schools get a better education.

  It is important to continue the national investment in children and 
their future. We should invest more in improving public schools by 
repairing crumbling facilities, by recruiting more and training better 
teachers, by reducing class size, by developing responsible afterschool 
activities, and by taking many other steps.
  If we add $1.6 billion to spend on elementary and secondary 
education, we should spend it wisely on these problems, not waste it on 
bad education policy and bad tax policy. We should rebuild our public 
schools, not build new tax shelters for the wealthy.
  According to the Joint Tax Committee, over half of the benefits--$800 
million--will go to 7 percent of the families with children in private 
schools. Did you note when my friend from Georgia was here he said: 70 
percent of the families that can use this tax break will be making 
under $70,000. But let's find out where the money is going, Senator. We 
are not just talking about who may be able to use the program. Let's 
look at what the Joint Tax Committee says. Let's read the next line. 
Let's ask where the money is going, not who ``may benefit.'' I heard 
that out here four or five times in the last hour, look who is going to 
benefit, all of these families below $70,000--``may benefit.'' May 
benefit. The fact is, the Joint Tax Committee has indicated that $800 
million, half of all the money, will go to the 7 percent of families 
whose children are already in private schools.
  If you are going to fight for a particular program, at least have the 
intellectual honesty to state what it is going to do and try to defend 
it. I can understand why those who support this program run from all 
the details, try to really say it's doing something that it does not 
do. With all respect, when I listen to those who have been supporting 
the program, I have to wonder how this program is going to solve the 
education problems for the young people? Proponents use the National at 
Risk as a starting point, but they, again, don't tell you the next 
line. The Nation at Risk gave recommendations on how to improve 
education, but they are not the ones included in the Coverdell bill. 
Here it is. The Joint Tax Committee: 93 percent of the children in the 
country go to the public schools; 7 percent go to private schools; and 
48 percent of the monetary benefit that will come from here will go to 
the public schools; but 52 percent--more than half--will go to the 7 
percent of the children who go to the private schools.
  You can say 70 percent of the families that are eligible for this tax 
break go to the public schools. But that's not where the money goes. 
And we all know that where the money goes is what counts around here. 
The money goes to families who already send their children to private 
school. We believe that we should not abandon the public schools. We 
ought to commit ourselves to helping and assisting the public schools 
and the children who attend them.
  The bottom line is clear. The scarce tax dollars should be targeted 
to public schools. They don't have the luxury of closing their doors to 
students who pose special challenges, such as children with 
disabilities, limited English-proficient children, or homeless 
students. This bill will not help children who need help the most.
  Parental choice is a mirage. Private schools apply different rules 
from public schools. Public schools must accept all children. Private 
schools can decide whether to accept a child or not. The real choice 
belongs to schools, not to the parents. It belongs to schools, not to 
the parents. Public schools must accept all children and develop 
programs to meet their needs. Private schools only accept children who 
fit the guidelines of their existing policy. So, if we are talking 
about public funds that are contributed from working families, we ought 
to be using those funds where the children of those working families go 
to school.
  And that means supporting the public schools. But the majority of the 
money goes to the seven percent of families sending their children to 
private schools.
  We have a series of recommendations that have been made by the top 
education community in this country. They are common-sense 
recommendations: Smaller classrooms, modernizing schools, upgrading 
teacher training, and expanding afterschool programs. These have all 
been outlined here, and they were all rejected on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. Then we are asked to accept this bill to support private 
schools or nothing. We are asked to accept this or nothing.
  We even had a modest rehabilitation program by our friend and 
colleague, the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, that was dropped 
in the conference, to try to increase assistance for school 
construction.
  Another program that the President talked about is the Educational 
Opportunity Zones to provide support to those school districts that are 
willing to invest in major restructuring, reorganization, and 
innovation in order to improve student academic achievement. The 
program provides some incentives for those exciting programs.
  You can say, what is an example where that program would work? 
Chicago is the example for that. Chicago is really doing a very 
important and effective job to try to give some help and assistance to 
its schools and to its parents and teachers who are trying to do the 
job of educating children, to do it right. We recognize that there are 
many communities that are trying to improve their schools, and we 
should support them.
  I am proud of what the city of Boston is doing, Mr. President. We saw 
just yesterday the Boston Globe was reporting on the most recent math 
and reading tests in that city and how, for the first time in many 
years, there was increased performance of students across the board in 
reading and math, and in some of the most difficult schools with high 
suspension rates, dropouts rates--the most troubled schools--how they 
have been able to see a significant improvement in academic achievement 
and accomplishment.
  That is happening in the public schools among some very needy 
children in a major city. Why? Because we have had a superintendent and 
a mayor who are committed to providing resources and discipline to 
enhance the education of the public schools--not abandon them.

[[Page S6874]]

  We have nothing against the private schools. There are many wonderful 
private schools. But we are talking about, in a budget with scarce 
resources, funds paid in by working families through their taxes. And, 
in the consideration of the budget, after the President's programs--
smaller class size, upgrading the skills for teachers, modernizing our 
schools, expanding afterschool programs--have been defeated, we are 
forced to consider this program that does what? Benefits the private 
schools--benefits the private schools.
  So, Mr. President, this proposal does not deserve to go into law. The 
President is right to veto this proposal. He is right to send it back 
to the Congress and say, ``Start over again. Start over again.'' We 
have time to do that. We have been fussing around here for 4 weeks 
debating the tobacco bill and then find that the point of order was 
made on it. It could have been made 4 weeks earlier in order to dismiss 
that as a result of big tobacco.
  We are not debating the education priorities of the American people. 
We are not debating the health care priorities of the American people, 
such as the Patients' Bill of Rights. People in this country want to 
see the reform of our health care system to eliminate the abuses of 
HMOs. Managed care too often means mismanaged care. The American people 
want these decisions made, that are affecting their health, by doctors 
and not insurance company accountants. We ought to be debating that. 
But we cannot debate that. It is nowhere on the Republican leader's 
schedule.
  And we ought to start over here, after the President's veto, and 
debate, what we can do as a legislative body, with scarce resources, 
that will make the best, most effective impact on improving the quality 
of education and achievement and accomplishment for the 90 percent of 
children in the public schools? Public money for public schools--that 
is the central challenge. And this particular measure fails on all 
accounts.

  So I hope, Mr. President, that we can get about the business in the 
remaining days of this Congress and support what we know is being done 
in rural, urban, and suburban communities, with scarce resources, by 
creative, dedicated people who are absolutely committed to their 
children in those communities, who are working tirelessly, 
exhaustively, to raise academic achievement and improve public schools.
  Do we have a ways to go? Yes. Will $1.6 billion solve the whole 
problem? No, and we should invest more--much more--in improving our 
public schools. But the question for us today is, Is this the best way 
to spend $1.6 billion of the American taxpayers' dollars to improve 
public schools? The answer is no. And for that reason, I believe that 
this measure should not win the support of the Members of this body.
  Mr. President, I know we are under a time fix. Whatever time remains 
on our side I yield to the good Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 16 minutes 30 
seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, in the spirit of debate, let me just say to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I just do not think this 
passes the credibility test as an education program for our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Minnesota will yield for a 
minute, the Chair misspoke. The Senator from Minnesota has 
approximately 40 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we are talking about a $1.7 billion initiative, and 
that is over a period of 5 years. The idea is that you can take $2,000 
and you can put it in a special account, education account.
  Now, for those who are following this debate, I would ask this 
question: How many families are in a position to take $2,000 out and 
put it in a savings account for education? This just kind of misses the 
essence of the reality of the vast majority of families in this 
country. And that is why the Joint Tax Committee said that this $1.7 
billion, over 5 years, which is touted as a major education program for 
our children, will amount to about $96 for wealthy parents for private 
schools, and this bill will give the rest of the parents about $7.
  So there is the question as to whether or not we want to take public 
taxpayer money and put it into private schools, but there is also the 
question, as my colleague from Massachusetts was focusing on, as to who 
exactly it is going to benefit.
  Mr. President, above and beyond the problem that the vast majority of 
families get no benefit from this, there is another problem. This is, 
again, a kind of tax policy; it is not an education program. I will get 
to that in a moment. And the tax benefits go, by and large, to the 
wealthiest citizens. I guess this is my Republican colleagues' 
definition of justice or fairness. But I do not think most of the 
people in the country agree with that.
  Where this proposal, however, I think is really most flawed has to do 
with what it does in education. I have tried to, to the best of my 
ability as a Senator from Minnesota, about every 2 weeks, to be in a 
school teaching somewhere. And I see nothing at all in what my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle call an education proposal 
that deals with the real needs.
  Will there be any funding to rebuild crumbling schools? No. And, by 
the way, let me say this again on the floor of the Senate: I have seen 
too many schools in the South, in the East, in the North, and in the 
West, where the ceilings are crumbling, they are asbestos laden, with 
decrepit toilets, without adequate heating systems; and we are not 
putting any money to help rebuild these crumbling schools.
  I would say the pages who are here, the students--what kind of 
message do we communicate to students who go to those schools about 
whether we value them or not? There is not one penny in this 
legislation that does anything about these crumbling schools. That 
would really be a commitment to public education.
  Is there any funding in this amendment--which is, by the way, 
pitifully inadequate in the first place--that will do anything to 
reduce class size? Well, no.

  If you were to believe that students know a little bit about their 
own education--I haven't been to one school anywhere in Minnesota or in 
the country where when I asked students, What do you think would be 
some of the best things we could do to make education better for you, 
that students haven't talked about smaller class sizes. Is there 
anything in this pitifully inadequate proposal in the first place that 
deals with reducing class size? No.
  By the way, colleagues, I have been to too many high schools where 
students tell me that they are in classes with 45 students. I was in a 
Los Angeles meeting with some wonderful high school students. They 
said, ``Part of the problem is we are not even missed. Nobody even 
knows we are there.'' The school is so overcrowded, the class size is 
so large, how can any teacher do a good job with 45 students in a 
class?
  Is there anything here that reduces class size? No. Is there anything 
here that will help make schools safer? No. Is there anything in this 
legislation that will help train teachers to use new technologies? No. 
Is there anything in this piece of legislation that will invest in some 
funding for summer institutes where teachers can meet, compare notes, 
fire one another up, talk about new ways of teaching and learning? No. 
Is there anything in this education proposal, or what my colleagues 
call an education proposal that deals with the learning gap that tries 
to come to terms with students, by the time they come to kindergarten 
they are ready to learn; she knows how to spell her name; she knows the 
alphabet; he knows colors, shapes and sizes; he has been read to 
widely, and they have that readiness to learn? No. Is there anything in 
what is called this education legislation that makes a commitment to 
early childhood development? No. Is there anything in this legislation 
that helps working families--after all, as my colleague from 
Massachusetts said, it is their taxpayer money--is there anything in 
this legislation that speaks to the ordeal that so many young families 
go through?
  I thought we had made some progress. But we really haven't. When 
Sheila and I were first married, age 19 --I don't advise that, by the 
way, for everyone; we had our first child when we were barely 20, about 
a year and a half later, David. We had hardly any money. I do advise 
it--we have been married 35 years; it can work well. My

[[Page S6875]]

point is--as I get myself in more trouble as I speak--we had our child 
David, and we hardly had any income. After, I think, six weeks, Sheila 
had to go back to work.
  Now we have family medical leave, but it is unpaid leave. If you 
don't have much money, you have to work. It was a wrenching experience, 
a wrenching experience to not be able to spend more time with your 
infant. She had to work, and I was a student and I was working. So then 
what happens? As it turns out, we look for what we can afford. There 
was a woman, a child-care giver, and she takes care of children, and we 
take him to her. We thought she would be good. But then after a couple 
of days of picking him up and he was just sort of limp, he had no 
expression in his face, and he had been so lively before, so we don't 
know what has happened. So I drop by this home in the middle of the 
day, and I see all these infants in playpens with pacifiers. They are 
not being picked up. They are not being touched. I felt so guilty I 
called my mom and dad and said I am going to quit school; I am going to 
work. I can't have him put in this situation. And we got some help from 
my parents. They were able to help us. I don't know how they did it on 
their income.

  Do you think that young parents who have the same experience today 
like the fact that they know they have no other choice but to drop 
their infant off in a child-care center? They know that maybe the 
people there aren't real well trained. People make precious little 
money that are involved in this area, but what choice do they have? 
They can't afford $12,000 a year if they have two small children.
  Is there anything in this piece of legislation or anything my 
Republican colleagues are doing in this session, in the Senate, that 
speaks to this question of how parents can do better by their children; 
how we can make sure that children come to kindergarten, ready to 
learn? That is a big education initiative. The answer is no. What do we 
have instead? $1.7 billion over 5 years, amounting to about $7 per 
family, and that is called a major education initiative?
  Is there anything in this piece of legislation that speaks to 
afterschool care? Let's have some sympathy with parents--single parents 
or both parents. Do you think parents like the fact that their 11-year-
old--it is astounding, and I forget the percentage, how many 11 and 12-
year-olds are home alone; it is a very high percentage. Do you think 
the parents like the fact they both have to work--they have no other 
choice--in order to have income. Some of them are working two jobs. 
They don't even have enough time to be with their children at home they 
are working so hard.
  Do you think a person likes the fact that his or her daughter age 11 
or age 7, goes home alone and watches trash TV talk shows and eats junk 
food and there is nobody to take care of them? Do you think a parent 
likes the fact when we hear so many things that are not so good that 
happen between 3 o'clock in the afternoon and 6 p.m.--do you think the 
parents like that? Wouldn't they like to have some really good school 
programs, some community programs, where their kids could be doing 
positive things and wouldn't be home alone, and the only reason they 
are home alone is because both parents have to work? No, they don't 
like it. So why don't we help these parents with a real education 
initiative. There is not a thing in this piece of legislation that 
deals with that at all.
  Mr. President, I have to say that this proposal, which is supposed to 
be the major education initiative of the Republican Party, provides 
help in inverse relationship to need, does zero for public education, 
does practically zero for working families, doesn't represent a step 
forward, but represents a great leap backward. The President is right 
to veto this piece of legislation. We must start all over again.
  I will just say to my colleagues that I think you are playing with 
fire. You are playing with fire with a piece of legislation that you 
tout as a major education reform bill that does next to nothing to make 
sure that we expand educational opportunity for all of our children in 
our country.
  I thought that children were 100 percent of our future. So I want to 
know, colleagues, where is our commitment to making sure that there is 
really good care for children before they even get to kindergarten? 
Where is our commitment to making sure if we are to follow the advice 
of all these studies that are coming out, all of this medical evidence 
about the development of the brain, to make sure that children have 
really good developmental child care? The answer is there is no 
commitment here. My colleagues in the majority of the Republican Party 
have no initiative at all.

  Where is the commitment to rebuild the crumbling schools and to have 
the teacher training and to have smaller class size and to make sure 
that the Internet and all this new technology means that all the 
schools are wired and teachers know how to work with it and children 
and young people become literate in this area? The answer is there is 
no commitment whatsoever.
  Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak against this piece 
of legislation. I hope my colleagues will vote against it. I hope the 
President will veto it. Then we must come back to education again.
  Colleagues, it is not enough to be giving speeches about this. I 
apply that to myself, as well. It is not enough to have photo 
opportunities with small children. We all love to have our pictures 
taken with children. It is not enough to be in the schools once in a 
while. And it is not enough to say that young people are our future. If 
we don't make the commitment, backed by solid legislation, with 
resources to get to communities so we can do well for all the children 
in our country, then from my point of view, we will not have been 
honest. We will not have done all that we should do. By the way, when I 
say ``honest,'' I don't mean as in personally honest. Senator 
Coverdell, the author of this bill, is a friend and I respect him. But 
I think in terms of the effect of this, it doesn't honestly reach 
children in our country; it doesn't honestly contribute to public 
education; it doesn't honestly contribute to the education of the vast 
majority of young people in the United States of America. Therefore, 
colleagues ought to vote against it.

  Mr. President, how much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 30 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before reserving the balance of our 
time, I want to just comment on one other matter, which I have tried to 
speak on every week.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________