[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1881-1893]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              AFFORDABLE EDUCATION ACT OF 1999--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the manager of this bill, the Senator from 
Georgia, has agreed that we would go out of the order we have had and 
allow Senator Biden to go forward for 10 minutes with his amendment. 
Following that, under the regular order that has already been agreed 
to, Senator Wellstone will be up next as part of the unanimous consent 
agreement. According to the unanimous consent agreement, on his 
amendment there are 2 hours set aside equally divided. Following that 
on our side, after the Republicans offer their amendment, Senator 
Murray would then offer her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. What is the request, again?
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Biden be allowed to 
precede for 10 minutes to offer his amendment, and following that, the 
Senator from Minnesota be recognized to offer his amendment, and then 
following the Republicans offering an amendment, Senator Murray be 
recognized to offer her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I may not take the 10 minutes.
  I can assure my colleagues that in order to accommodate the number of 
Senators who asked about my amendment, I am not going to, at this 
moment, force a vote on that amendment.
  What I rise today for is to speak about an amendment I have submitted 
to this bill. What we have before us today is fundamentally a tax bill 
to help middle-class parents give their children the best education 
possible at elementary and secondary levels, as well as higher 
education.
  I, with a few on my side of the aisle, happen to support the Senator 
from Georgia in his effort. The proposals in this bill are not new. In 
fact, I have supported many of them in their various incarnations in 
the past.
  Several of these proposals were included as part of a so-called GET 
AHEAD Act--Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education 
is Affordable and Dependable--an act which I introduced in 1997. 
Although this bill never came before the Congress for a vote, many of 
its provisions were included in the 1997 tax bill.
  In 1998, I was one of only a handful of Democrats who supported the 
legislation to expand the existing education savings accounts, more 
commonly referred to as educational IRAs. Currently, $500 a year may be 
contributed to these education IRAs, and the money in these accounts 
may only be used for higher education. However, under the 1998 
proposal, as well as the bill we have before us today, these accounts 
would be expanded so the parents could contribute up to $2,000 per 
year, and the savings in the accounts

[[Page 1882]]

could be used to pay for elementary and secondary education costs, as 
well as the costs associated with higher education.
  I find no principal rationale why I should be able to use a $2,000 
IRA to have sent my child to Georgetown University and not use it to 
send my child to Archmere Academy, which is a Catholic institution as 
well but a high school.
  During my time in the Senate, I have consistently supported 
reasonable, appropriate, and constitutional measures to help middle-
class and low-income families choose an alternative to public schools. 
I believe the bill achieves part of this goal.
  There is no tax deduction for the money put into these education 
IRAs. There is no tax deduction for the entire cost of a private or 
parochial education. This is not a voucher proposal.
  The thing I would most want to speak to today is the idea that we 
have to do more than we are now to accommodate parents sending their 
kids to college. As helpful as this initiative is, it does not go very 
far. We all know firsthand how difficult it is for American families to 
afford college.
  In 1997, we took some important steps towards making college 
education more affordable with the enactment of several tax credits for 
students and their families. So-called HOPE scholarships allow families 
a tax credit of up to $1,500 for tuition and fees for the first 2 years 
of college. The Lifetime Learning credit currently allows families a 
20-percent tax credit on up to $5,000 for educational expenses through 
the year 2002, and up to $10,000 for educational expenses thereafter.
  Additionally, the 1997 tax bill allows students to deduct a portion 
of the interest paid on student loans during the first 60 months of 
repayment. The bill before us today proposes to eliminate that 60-month 
limit on student loan interest deductions and allow students to deduct 
the interest paid on their student loans for the duration of their 
repayment.
  While this is another step in the right direction, I believe there is 
still more we can do to help our Nation's college students. That is why 
I am offering an amendment today to allow an additional tax relief for 
millions of families who are struggling to put their kids through 
college. My amendment builds upon the proposal contained in the 
legislation introduced in 1997.
  My amendment would offer families the option of either a tax 
deduction of a 28-percent tax credit on up to $5,000 of educational 
expenses during 2001 and 2002 and up to $10,000 of educational expenses 
during 2003 and thereafter. Further, there is no limit on the number of 
years the family could claim this tax credit. So a student could claim 
a deduction or credit for every year he or she is enrolled in an 
institution of higher learning as either an undergraduate or a graduate 
student.
  Additionally, this educational tax deduction contains higher income 
thresholds. I would allow this to be taken for up to $120,000 for joint 
filers, thus allowing more families and more students to take advantage 
of the tax benefits in this proposal.
  Things have changed a great deal since I arrived in the Senate in 
1973. In 1973, there was still the myth that all a student needed was a 
good high school education to have a clear shot at being able to make 
it. The statistics and the numbers and the story has been told over the 
last 28 years that a college education is essentially becoming a 
prerequisite for having a clear shot at the middle-class dream of being 
able to own a home, afford a good education for your children, and to 
live with some degree of financial certitude.
  I will not take more time today, although when I do introduce this 
formally to a piece of legislation, I will speak much longer and in 
much more detail.
  To summarize, I think it is the most noble of social purposes to seek 
to encourage families to spend money on educating their children and, 
particularly at this stage, on higher education. People say to me: Joe, 
$120,000 is an awful lot of money for you to allow someone to have a 
tax advantage. You can have them make up to $120,000 and they still get 
a benefit here.
  The answer is yes. My inclination is to go higher. Try sending a kid 
to a private institution today and college. Try sending a kid to a 
school that is not a State public institution. There are phenomenal 
State public institutions. I am not suggesting there aren't.
  Take my alma mater, the University of Delaware. As an in-State 
student, you can get it done for somewhere around $13,000 room, board, 
and tuition. Send that same kid to the school my son attended, the 
University of Pennsylvania and it is $35,000. Send them to Gettysburg 
College and it is $30,000 room, board, and tuition. The cost of 
education is astronomical.
  What I don't like to see happen, when you think about the incredible 
cost of education today and what we are developing, is basically a two-
tiered education system. One of the greatest bills that ever passed was 
the GI bill. The GI bill meant that Irish Catholic kids and inner-city 
kids and farm boys could go to Harvard and Yale and Princeton and to 
the great ``universities'' out there. But now to go to those schools 
and every other school, many of which we haven't heard the names of, 
there is very little possibility. The only choice a student has in a 
middle-class family is to be able to go to the State institution.
  I went to the State institution. I am proud of having gone to the 
State institution. My wife graduated from the State institution. My 
whole family went to the University of Delaware. I take a back seat to 
no one at any other university in terms of the education I received, 
but I don't want to be in a position where, in fact, the only choice 
middle-class people have of sending their kids to college is at a State 
university. I don't want this two-tiered system to reemerge.
  If you get into one of the great universities, the prestige 
universities, they are endowed enough that if you have no money, you 
are likely to be able to get help. You will be able to get some aid 
packages to go. The people who get crunched are the people in the 
middle.
  I am delighted and pleased and I applaud the Georgetowns and the 
Dukes and the Princetons and the Stanfords and the great universities 
out there that are the named universities for providing for the 
education of moderate- and low-income people who otherwise qualify to 
get in. Very few get turned away because of that. The problem comes 
with the quintessential middle-class family who makes what appears to 
be a good income, has three kids going to college, and they lose that 
option. I don't think they should.
  Mr. President, rather than take the time of the Senate, I will 
withhold sending my amendment to the desk because I am not going to ask 
for a vote on it now. I will speak to this in more detail later.
  I thank the manager of the bill for allowing me the opportunity. I 
particularly thank Senator Wellstone, who was here before me, for 
allowing me to precede him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2865

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
    report to Congress on the extent and severity of child poverty)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2865.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place add the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT TO CONGRESS REGARDING EXTENT AND SEVERITY OF 
                   CHILD POVERTY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than June 1, 2001 and prior to 
     any reauthorization of the temporary assistance to needy 
     families program under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for any fiscal year 
     after fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this

[[Page 1883]]

     section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall report to 
     Congress on the extent and severity of child poverty in the 
     United States. Such report shall, at a minimum--
       (1) determine for the period since the enactment of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 2105)--
       (A) whether the rate of child poverty in the United States 
     has increased;
       (B) whether the children who live in poverty in the United 
     States have gotten poorer; and
       (C) how changes in the availability of cash and non-cash 
     benefits to poor families have affected child poverty in the 
     United States;
       (2) identify alternative methods for defining child poverty 
     that are based on consideration of factors other than family 
     income and resources, including consideration of a family's 
     work-related expenses; and
       (3) contain multiple measures of child poverty in the 
     United States that may include the child poverty gap and the 
     extreme poverty rate.
       (b) Legislative Proposal.--If the Secretary determines that 
     during the period since the enactment of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 2105) the extent or 
     severity of child poverty in the United States has increased 
     to any extent, the Secretary shall include with the report to 
     Congress required under subsection (a) a legislative proposal 
     addressing the factors that led to such increase.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment--and I 
hope there will be a very strong vote for the amendment--is to call on 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to the Congress on 
the extent and severity of child poverty in our country. I will make 
the connection to education in a moment.
  We need to have some critical information about the welfare bill 
before reauthorization. That is what this amendment says. We ask the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide this Congress with 
critical information. The Congress has consented so far to allow 
welfare reform to continue without an honest accounting of how our 
actions impact our Nation's children. Before we reauthorize this bill, 
we need to know what has happened.
  There is one missing ingredient when we talk about welfare, and that 
missing ingredient is information. Let me quote from some of the most 
knowledgeable people who are doing research in this area. The National 
Academy of Sciences convened a panel of leading researchers to evaluate 
the data and methods for measuring the effects of welfare reform. This 
is basically a quote from their report:

       The gaps in the data infrastructure for determining the 
     effects of welfare reform are numerous.

  ``Numerous gaps in the data''--what does that mean? It means we have 
no understanding of what the effects of this legislation on the lives 
of people in our country--poor people, mainly women and children. The 
information is simply not collected, and we don't know because we don't 
ask.
  The purpose of this amendment is to understand the effect of this 
legislation on child poverty before we reauthorize it. We need to know 
whether or not it is true, as has been reported in the data, that 
actually we are seeing an increase in the poverty of the poorest of the 
poor children--those children in households with less than half of the 
officially defined poverty income. We need to know what the gap is 
between the welfare bill and families working, and whether or not they 
are above the poverty level income, because the whole goal was to move 
people to economic self-sufficiency. We need to know what, in fact, is 
going on with programs such as the earned-income tax credit, or food 
stamp assistance, or Medicaid, and how that has affected the lives of 
poor children in America.
  We need to do some policy evaluation. Too many people--Republicans 
and Democrats and the administration--brag about the fact that the 
rolls have been slashed by 50 percent since 1994. But how can anyone in 
good conscience use that as a measure of success alone? Reducing the 
rolls is easy. You just push people off the rolls, you close their 
cases, and you wish them good luck.
  Reducing the rolls by half doesn't indicate whether or not we have 
reduced the poverty. The goal is to reduce the poverty of women and 
poor children in America. The question is whether or not people who 
have been pushed off the rolls are working and at what kinds of jobs. 
Are they living-wage jobs? And the question is, What kind of child care 
do they have for their children? Do they still have medical assistance, 
or are they worse off because they have been cut off of medical 
assistance? The question is, What about the additional services for 
those families where maybe the single parent struggles with addiction, 
or maybe she has been battered over and over again and there needs to 
be additional support before this woman and her family can move to 
employment and decent wages. Are the support services being provided?
  I think we have created a whole new class of working poor people in 
this country. We have created a whole new class--unless we call for a 
policy evaluation--of the ``disappeared.'' We don't know what is 
happening. We have been unwilling to do any serious policy evaluation. 
Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish sociologist, once wrote that ignorance is 
never random. We don't know what we don't want to do. Before we 
reauthorize the welfare bill and as we move forward on an education 
piece of legislation, I would ask the Senate to go on record calling 
for an evaluation as to the effect of this legislation on poor children 
in our country.
  Some would say: What are you doing, Senator Wellstone, calling for an 
evaluation on a welfare bill? This doesn't belong on an education bill.
  If a child is living in poverty--and I try to stay very close to this 
question, as I care a great deal about what happens to poor children in 
America--the preliminary reports I have seen indicate we now have more 
children living in households below the poverty level of income. We see 
a deepening of poverty in children in our country.
  I argue that if a child is sick, if a family has been cut off medical 
assistance--and please remember that Families USA, 6 months ago or so, 
issued a report that there are 670,000 people in our country today who 
no longer have medical assistance because of the welfare bill--I argue 
that children don't do well in school when they do not receive adequate 
care, when they are sick, when they have an illness, or when they have 
tooth decay or an abscessed tooth. It is very hard for children to do 
well in school under those circumstances. I think we are sleep-walking 
in the Senate if we don't see any connection between how well children 
do in school and the economic circumstances of their lives.
  We had a wonderful coalition gathering yesterday. Senators Kennedy 
and Specter are introducing antihunger legislation, of which I am proud 
to be an original cosponsor. If we have 30 million citizens in our 
country today with a booming economy who are ``food insecure,'' and if 
too high a percentage of those citizens are children, and if, in fact, 
we have seen a dramatic decline in food stamp participation--and I will 
marshal the evidence for this in a moment--and the Food Stamp Program 
was the major safety net for children in this country, you had better 
believe I have this amendment on this bill, because when children are 
hungry, they don't do well in school.
  May I repeat that. When children are hungry, they don't do well in 
school. May I repeat the fact that we have dramatically slashed the 
food stamp rolls and that many children who should be receiving food 
stamp assistance today are not receiving food stamp assistance. That is 
an important fact. We ought to do the policy evaluation. We ought to 
have the courage to evaluate the impact of this welfare bill on poor 
children in America today.
  In my State there is no longer any affordable rental housing. It is 
absolutely unbelievable. Children are the fastest-growing segment of 
the homeless population in our country today, and they end up having to 
move four or five times during the school year. In many of the schools 
I visit in our State of Minnesota, especially in our cities, and I 
visit one every 2 weeks, the teachers tell me it is hard for a third-
grader to do well when she is moved four times during a year because 
the family can't find affordable housing. Don't tell me that doesn't 
have any impact on how well a child performs in school. This is an 
education bill being

[[Page 1884]]

debated, so I have an amendment that deals with the poverty of children 
in our country.
  I argue that today, with an economy booming and an affluent country, 
we have one out of every five children growing up poor in our country. 
Under the age of 3, I believe it is closer to one out of every four; 
and under the age of 3, it is about 50 percent of children of color 
growing up poor in our country today, which is a national disgrace. I 
argue that poverty has everything in the world to do with education and 
whether or not each and every child in America has the same opportunity 
to reach her full potential and his full potential, which is the 
goodness of our country.
  Challenging Senators today to vote for a policy of evaluation on the 
welfare bill, so we can assess what is happening to poor children, is 
the right thing to do on an education bill.
  If we blindly accept the argument that the welfare ``reform" is a 
great success because we have eliminated the rolls by 50 percent, we 
are guilty of turning our backs on the most vulnerable citizens in our 
country--poor children. And if we will not address the underlying 
problems that deal with race--yes, race--and gender, and poverty, and 
inequality, and social injustice in our country today, it is all too 
predictable which children will come to kindergarten way behind and 
which children will fall even further behind, and, yes, which children 
will fail these standardized high-stakes tests we give to show how 
tough we are and how rigorous we are, and which children will be held 
back, and which children will drop out of school, and which children 
will wind up incarcerated in America today.
  Don't move to table this amendment arguing that it has nothing to do 
with education. No Senator should say, ``Senator Wellstone, I am going 
to table your amendment because your amendment deals with race, gender, 
and poverty of children in this country and that has nothing to do with 
education.'' Today, 13 million children are growing up poor in our 
country with a booming economy.
  I ask my colleagues to consider my amendment before we reauthorize 
this welfare bill which will impact on children and the poverty of 
children.
  Let me now discuss some recent studies.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bob 
Greenstein, director, received the McArthur Foundation grant--I think 
one of the genius grants--for the impeccable research he directs. More 
than two-thirds of our States impose full-family sanctions, stopping 
aid to children as well as parents. Nearly half of these States impose 
a full-family sanction at the first instance of noncompliance. More 
than one-fourth of all case closures in a number of States have been 
the result of sanctions.
  In other words, half of the people are off the welfare rolls. In many 
cases, the families have been sanctioned. That doesn't mean they are 
working. It doesn't mean they have good wages or are doing well. They 
have just been sanctioned. Then the question becomes, If in a lot of 
States you have these sanctions, are the sanctions justified?
  A recent Utah study found that three-quarters of the sanctioned 
families had three or more barriers to employment, including a health 
or medical problem, lack of transportation, or lack of skills.
  A Minnesota study concluded that sanctioned families were four times 
as likely as the caseload as a whole to report chemical dependency, 
three times as likely to report a family health problem, and twice as 
likely to report a mental health problem or domestic violence.
  We should be worried about this. We should want to know what is going 
on.
  Finally, quite often the families who are subject to the sanctions 
may have the greatest difficulty understanding the program, rules, and 
expectations. Recent studies from South Carolina and Delaware document 
that sanction rates are highest for those people with the least amount 
of education. The Delaware study also found that sanctioned individuals 
were more likely to have trouble comprehending TANF rules and did not 
understand the consequences of noncompliance.
  As a result of the welfare bill, more than 2.5 million poor families 
have lost their benefits. That is a decline in the rolls of 50 percent. 
But the number of people living in poverty in our country has held 
close to the study. Many of these families have gone from being poor to 
getting poorer, and most of the welfare recipients are children.
  This is why I challenge Senators today. I do not know how any of you 
can vote against this, colleagues. I am saying, before we do any 
reauthorization of this welfare bill, we ought to evaluate the impact 
of poverty on children.
  Don't table this amendment because you cannot separate whether 
children are hungry, homeless, or whether there has been decent child 
care before they get to kindergarten.
  One study I cite should trouble Senator Reid and every Senator. It 
was released by researchers at UC-Berkeley and Yale. They found that 
about a million additional toddlers and preschoolers are now in child 
care because of the changes in the welfare law. Mothers work. They are 
single parents. But these children, unfortunately, are in low-quality 
child care, and therefore they end up lagging behind other children 
their age in developmental measures.
  There was a study of nearly 1,000 single mothers moving from welfare 
to work, and they found that many of these children had been placed in 
child care settings where they watched hours of television or wandered 
aimlessly and had little interaction with their caregivers.
  The result: These toddlers showed developmental delays. When asked to 
point to one of three different pictures in a book, fewer than two out 
of five of the toddlers in the study pointed to the right picture 
compared to the national norm of four out of five children.
  One of the study's authors is quoted as saying, ``We know that high-
quality child care can help children and that poor children can benefit 
the most. So we hope this will be a wake-up call to do something about 
the quality of child care in this country. The quality of day-care 
centers is not great for middle-class families, but it is surprising 
and distressing to see the extent to which welfare families' quality 
was even lower.''
  Colleagues, we ought to know what is going on with this bill. If we 
are telling these mothers they have to work, that we are not looking at 
the child care picture, and their children are in dangerous and 
inadequate child care centers and falling further behind 
developmentally, shouldn't we know that? Don't we want to know the 
impact? Can any Senator tell me that is of no consequence as to how 
well these children do in school? Of course it is.
  I also want to point out that many of these families have been 
stigmatized. We have an additional problem. Again, I would like to see 
an analysis of this. But all too often, too many families don't even 
enter TANF. They do not know they have the right to receive assistance 
at the beginning, and, therefore, in this affluent economy we see a 
rise in the use of food banks and shelters. It is amazing. Everybody is 
claiming success.
  The 50-percent reduction in the welfare rolls has hardly reduced 
poverty. In many cases, children are poorer now than they were before. 
In all too many cases families don't even know they are eligible to 
receive this assistance, and they don't.
  I will save some of my time in case there is a response to the 
debate. But I want to talk about a report released yesterday by the 
National Campaign for Jobs and Income. It is a new coalition of 
antipoverty groups.
  They found a couple of results that are very distressing. In too many 
cases families are eligible still for medical assistance and food stamp 
assistance when they move from welfare to work, but at the local county 
level they are not told they are eligible. That is incredible. That is 
absolutely incredible.
  Let me talk about Medicaid and what is happening under welfare 
reform.
  Despite the creation of the State Child Health Insurance Program, 
CHIPS, which provide resources to

[[Page 1885]]

States, the total number of low-income children enrolled in Medicaid in 
the State CHIP program combined has actually decreased in the 12 States 
with the largest number of uninsured children between 1996 and 1998.
  A study in the January issue of Health Fairs found that 41 percent of 
the women surveyed lacked health insurance one year after leaving 
welfare. Forty-one percent of these women no longer have any coverage. 
Their families don't have coverage. Only 36 percent of the women had 
been able to retain their Medicaid coverage. The same study found that 
23 percent of the women with children were also uninsured. Some were 
about to keep their insurance. But 23 percent were uninsured one year 
after losing welfare benefits.
  I ask you to vote for an amendment that says we ought to do an 
evaluation of the impact of their welfare bill on the poverty of 
children. If 23 percent of the children one year after their mothers 
leave welfare no longer are covered and no longer have any health 
insurance coverage, that is a serious consequence. We ought to 
understand that.
  According to Families USA, two-thirds of a million low-income 
people--approximately 675,000--lost their Medicaid coverage and became 
uninsured as a result of the welfare bill.
  Families are losing Medicaid coverage under welfare reform because: 
No. 1, they are basically not being told they are entitled to it at the 
local level.
  No. 2, you have these complex rules, and it is very difficult for 
people to know their rights. Legal immigrants, in particular, are 
especially confused.
  No. 3, antiquated computer systems. Most States rely on computer 
systems that were designed for welfare programs, not Medicaid. As a 
result, these systems produce letters that are technical and difficult 
to understand. When families are pushed off welfare right away they 
don't even know they are entitled to medical assistance.
  Now for the second set of disturbing facts. Sometimes facts make 
Members uncomfortable--or they should make Members uncomfortable. 
According to the USDA, 30 million people live in a ``food insecure'' 
house; 40 percent of them are children; 12.5 million children are 
``food insecure''--that is another way of saying going hungry or 
malnourished.
  I have talked about all of the people who have been pushed off 
welfare. According to a study by the USDA, more than one-third of those 
eligible for the Food Stamp Program are not receiving the benefits. A 
General Accounting Office report released last year found food stamp 
participation dropped faster than related indicators would predict.
  Furthermore, GAO points out there is a growing gap between the number 
of children living in poverty, an important indicator of children's 
need for food assistance and the number of children receiving food 
assistance. That food stamp participation dropped faster than related 
economic indicators would indicate simply means we have hardly made a 
dent in reducing poverty. We have many poor children in the country. 
The Food Stamp Program was the major safety net program for poor 
children in America and we have seen a dramatic decline in 
participation. Probably as many as 33 percent of the children should be 
receiving the help, and they are not. Therefore, they are hungry, they 
are malnourished, and therefore they can't do as well in school. And no 
Senator's child could do well in school if their child went to school 
malnourished or if their child was hungry.
  These are not my opinions but that of good researchers. The Urban 
Institute report found two-thirds of the families who left the Food 
Stamp Program were still eligible for food stamps.
  What is going on? We need a policy evaluation. A July 1999 report, 
prepared for USDA by Mathematics Policy Research, identified ``lack of 
client information'' as the barrier to participation and pointed out 
that many of these people who were not participating were not aware 
they were eligible.
  At the local level they are not being told. We have created such a 
stigma, we have done so much stereotyping and bashing of these poor 
women and children and the poor in America today, that it has filtered 
down to the local level. Basically, at the local level people don't 
even know they have the right to get this assistance.
  Much of this is happening at the same time the States are now sitting 
on a $7 billion surplus of TANF money. Colleagues who were for the 
welfare bill should be as concerned about this as I am. There were a 
number of States--Minnesota was one last year; not this year, I am 
happy to say--that through a little of bit of accounting and juggling, 
used the TANF money for a tax rebate.
  This is what we have: Families who are not being told they are 
eligible for medical assistance, and they are; we have families not 
being told they are eligible for food stamp assistance, and they are; 
we have a rise in the use of food shelters; we have hungry children in 
America; we have many families who no longer receive medical assistance 
1 year after the welfare bill; we have the vast majority of the women 
no longer on welfare and still don't make even poverty wages; and we 
have a whole group of other recipients and women who have severely 
disabled children or they had children when they were children, who do 
not have the skills development or have struggled with addiction, or we 
have, unfortunately, a central issue of violence in the home, women who 
have been battered over and over again. They need to have the support 
services so they can move from welfare to work and be able to support 
their children in this prosperous economy.
  The Governors came here and said, several years ago: Trust us, trust 
us, trust us.
  Some States are doing good work. The Chair was a Governor of New 
Hampshire. Some States are doing good work.
  I can't believe they are sitting on $7 billion in TANF money, some of 
which could go into training, some of which could go into education, 
some of which could go into the support services. That is what this was 
all about.
  There is reason to be concerned. Not later than June 1, 2001, and 
prior to the reauthorization of this bill, let's call upon the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to make a report on the poverty 
of children in America and in particular on the welfare bill and how it 
has affected the economic status of the children in these families.
  The reason I offered this amendment is manyfold, but let me make it 
twofold. First, there is disturbing evidence based upon reports that we 
are now seeing an increase of children who are among the poorest of 
poor in America. Second, there is disturbing evidence that very few of 
these families have actually moved from welfare to escape poverty. 
There is clear evidence that many of the families have now lost their 
medical assistance and are worse off. In addition, there is clear 
evidence that many of these children and many of these families are 
eligible for food stamp assistance, which is particularly important in 
making sure that children don't go hungry, and they are not being told 
about it.
  The second reason I bring this amendment to the floor is I think 
there should be an up-or-down vote. Members can't argue that this is 
irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The Yale-Berkeley study sends 
chills down my spine. There has also been a national report. I know 
there was a New York Times article about it. What has happened with 
many of these families is the mothers work, but all too often they have 
to leave at 6 by bus. It takes them 2 hours. There is not adequate 
transportation. They don't have a car or they may live in a rural area. 
They don't get home until 8 o'clock at night. The child care situation 
is frightening. A lot of the child care for these children is dangerous 
and inadequate, at best. These children should be valued as much as our 
children.
  Colleagues, I wait for a response.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 28\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague from Georgia whether there is any 
response.

[[Page 1886]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I did not hear the Senator's question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Georgia, I 
reserve the remainder of my time. I have tried to make the following 
arguments. I have tried to say there is disturbing evidence, outside 
reports that all may not be right with what is happening. Before we 
reauthorize this bill, we ought to have a policy evaluation of the 
impact on poor children. Then I went on and tried to give examples. I 
can repeat them if my colleague wants me to. It is in my head and my 
heart.
  My second point has been I certainly hope this amendment will not be 
tabled because I think it has everything to do with education. I think 
it is terribly important.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 59 minutes. The Senator from 
Minnesota has 28 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It might be helpful to the Senator from Minnesota to 
know I do not believe there will be a rebuttal to his amendment. It is 
my intention to yield back our time at the appropriate moment.
  I am unaware of anybody who has expressed to me an interest in 
debating his amendment. If the Senator wanted to use the remainder of 
his time, this would be the time to do it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I gather from what my colleague said 
that means if there is not a rebuttal, there is going to be a good 
strong vote for this amendment? Is that what my colleague is saying? 
That would please me.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Anybody who predicts the legislative process is 
probably the same person who gets his own attorney.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Is my colleague going to move to table?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes, I am.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia. Here 
is what I am concerned about now. I want to say this to the Senator 
from Georgia.
  The background of this is, I have for the last 2 years, off and on, 
been trying to get a policy evaluation of the bill. This time I focused 
on the poverty of children because I thought it was so important, so 
relevant to education. I believe that. I think my colleague from 
Georgia does.
  I say to the Senator, he does not have to respond. We will see what 
the House does. It is a tax bill. It may go to the President, and it 
could very well be vetoed. If that happens, then I have to come back 
with this amendment on another vehicle, but I certainly hope if we go 
to conference committee this amendment will not be dropped.
  I am going to call for a record vote because I want everybody on 
record. What has happened in the past is I will come out and then it 
will get dropped. First, we lost on a vote, a slightly different 
amendment. Then the next one was dropped.
  I know I speak with emotion about this, but I really do think it 
makes sense before we reauthorize by 2001--before we reauthorize in 
2002, we ought to know what the impact is. I have presented a lot of 
studies that should trouble all of us. I think it is terribly relevant 
to how well our children do.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia because he could have come out and 
tried to give this the back of his hand and tabled it. I appreciate the 
fact he did not. I do not think Senators should vote against this 
amendment. What I hope is it will stay in conference committee. I make 
that request to my colleague.
  I have been on votes that have been 99-1, where I am the 1. 
Obviously, I have not persuaded too many people. And then I have been 
involved in votes that are closer. If this is almost a unanimous vote 
or a unanimous vote, I would like Senators to know: You are on record. 
When we vote we are on record. I want Senators to know when you vote 
you are on record saying it is important we have a thorough policy 
evaluation done of the effect of the welfare bill on children. We want 
to know if there has been a rise in the poorest of the poor children. 
We want to know what the gap is between those families who are working 
and poverty-level income. Are they moving to economic self-sufficiency? 
We want to know what has happened with other programs such as food 
stamp programs and why there has been such a drop in food stamp 
participation, way below the drop in poverty. We want to know what is 
going on. We want to know what is going on with child care. I am 
troubled by all these reports about the dangers due to inadequate child 
care for these children.
  The way I look at it, I say to Senator Coverdell, the evidence is 
irrefutable that probably the most important thing any of us could do 
is try to make sure prekindergarten kids get the developmental child 
care from parents--or whoever, if the parents work--so they come to 
kindergarten ready to learn and not way behind.
  I want all Senators to know you are on record supporting this policy 
evaluation. I have been trying to do this for several years. I 
appreciate the support. It is not a small question. Children who are 
hungry do not do well in school. Children who receive no health care 
coverage or dental care where they have an abscessed tooth and 
infection do not do well in school. Children who have been in inferior 
prekindergarten situations, inadequate child care, do not do well in 
school. Children who are homeless do not do well in school. And 
children who are among the poorest of the poorest of the poor citizens 
of this country, living in households at less than half the poverty-
level income, do not do well in school.
  I think it is important we get a handle on what it means that in the 
most affluent country in the world, with an economy booming and record 
surpluses, we have 12.5 million children who are ``food insecure.''
  We can do better, and we will do better when we are willing to do an 
honest evaluation as to what is happening.
  I thank my colleague from Georgia. I take his support not as a sort 
of effort to trivialize this but as sincere support. It means a lot to 
me.
  Before I yield the floor, I ask my colleague, I would like to have 
the vote. I would like to have everybody on record. When would we be 
scheduling this vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is not a precise science we are 
dealing with here, but it is contemplated that we will move from the 
Senator's amendment to an amendment by Senator Hutchison of Texas, to 
an amendment by Senator Murray of Washington, and perhaps one other 
which is being discussed from Senator Roth, which is a managers' 
amendment. Then all those would be voted on back to back. My guess is, 
if that is the general plan and it occurs that way--as the Senator 
knows, these things are sometimes subject to some modification--I think 
that is a pretty good description of what is likely to happen and that 
would probably happen around 5:30 or 6 o'clock. It is contemplated the 
Senator wants a vote on his amendment. It will be in that stacked 
series of votes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Georgia, what would be best 
for Senators' schedules would be stacked votes, either later today or 
early tomorrow morning; is that correct?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes. The purpose for that is we are trying to 
facilitate people offering amendments, trying to keep it as near on 
time as we were doing with the presentation of the Senator so people 
can keep their schedules.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Georgia. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back his time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Is the Senator from Minnesota prepared to yield back 
his time? I am prepared to yield back our time on the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield back our time.

[[Page 1887]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2860

       (Purpose: To establish the Careers to Classrooms Program)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2860.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2860.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment adds flexibility to our 
school systems. I am working with Senator Jeffords and his committee, 
and Senator Leahy as well, on the ESEA reauthorization.
  I wish to lay down the marker with this amendment because I think it 
is the key to what we are talking about. We are trying to give parents 
more options for their children to make the choices that are best for 
each child.
  One of the problems we have in high-needs schools across our country 
is that we do not have qualified teachers to teach subjects that will 
benefit young people all over our country. It may be computer courses. 
It may be language courses. Yet we have people who have had careers--
people in the military, people in corporations and businesses--who may 
be proficient in French and they may live in an area where the school 
is not able to teach French because they do not have a qualified 
teacher. This would be a big benefit to the young people in that school 
system if they had that as an option. It may be the Russian language or 
the Chinese language. It may be computer skills. It may be chemistry or 
biology classes. There are so many areas, but they just are not teacher 
qualified.
  My bill, which is called Careers to Classrooms, is being offered as 
an amendment to give more flexibility to the States by allowing them to 
go to a high-needs school and give priority in that high-needs school 
to recruiting teachers.
  My amendment also encourages a certification process that will bring 
the teacher up to speed quickly. It is an expedited certification 
process so the teacher will not have to wait a whole year to go into 
the classroom but can go through an expedited certification process by 
that State.
  It is important we replicate the programs that have succeeded. My 
Careers to Classrooms amendment replicates the Troops to Teachers 
Program that has been in place and has been very successful. It uses 
retired military people who have experience in the military which they 
can transfer to the classroom and enrich educational opportunities for 
our young people. This allows people in the private sector to do the 
same.
  This is similar, but not the same, as the Graham amendment. The 
Graham amendment goes toward the universities being able to have 
programs. Mine is for the States to put these programs in place.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment. I think it adds an enriching 
experience for the classrooms, particularly in high-needs schools, 
whether it be in an urban community that does not have access to 
teachers or in our rural areas.
  I happen to know of a case involving a woman who was a French major 
in college. She had taught French in private schools. She moved to a 
small town in Texas where they wanted to offer French in the high 
school. She wanted to teach it, but she could not because she did not 
have the teacher certification.
  This is made to order for this situation. This is a French language 
major who taught French in private schools and who wants to give this 
opportunity to a small Texas high school. I want her to be able to do 
that because we know those students will be enriched by having that 
option.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment. I hope we can offer this kind of 
enrichment to schools all over our country by giving the States this 
option.
  Mr. President, I ask the distinguished manager of the bill if I can 
ask approval of my amendment. Does he want a voice vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, if the Senator from Texas has completed 
her presentation on the amendment, my suggestion is that we set it 
aside and move to other matters. We are trying to determine the 
sequence of amendments. Perhaps we can deal with the amendment either 
on a recorded vote or perhaps we can secure a voice vote in the back-
to-back management of this current series of amendments.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to accommodate whatever works. Is my 
amendment the pending amendment?
  Mr. COVERDELL. It is at the moment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, does the Senator want me to set it 
aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we may be able to clear this. We do not 
know. I have to check with the Finance Committee as to how they feel 
about this. It may be better to put this in the normal course of 
amendments. If we can do this by voice vote, that will be great.
  Mr. COVERDELL. What we are saying is we have not decided that yet. 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside 
for the moment. We will proceed with business and return to it at the 
appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous 
consent in just a moment. I see my colleague is wishing to make a 
remark or two, so I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Georgia, there are a 
number of meetings taking place tonight, one at the White House. What 
we are trying to do is get things arranged so we can have votes 
completed in time for Senators to go to the White House for a 
bipartisan meeting. What we are trying to do is have Senator Murray 
take the floor for her amendment at about 20 until 5. The majority will 
respond to that. We will then begin a series of two and possibly three 
votes, two recorded votes, maybe one voice vote. If we can't do the one 
by voice, that will be put over until tomorrow, so Members have an idea 
of what we are trying to do.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Nevada. 
They very appropriately characterize what is being attempted at this 
point.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
in relation to the Murray amendment on class size be divided with 
Senator Murray in control of 20 minutes and Senator Coverdell control 
of 10 minutes. I further ask consent that at 5:05 p.m. today the Senate 
proceed to a vote in relation to the Wellstone amendment No. 2865, to 
be followed by a vote in relation to the Murray amendment regarding 
class size. I further ask consent that no amendment

[[Page 1888]]

be in order to the amendments prior to the votes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my only 
modification would be that the vote will be at approximately 5:05. It 
may not be exactly at that time because the time doesn't add up.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I so modify the request to say approximately 5:05 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. For the information of all Members, this agreement 
would provide for the disposition of two additional amendments. It is 
hoped that the Hutchison amendment will be agreed to by a voice vote; 
therefore, Members can expect two or three votes beginning at 
approximately 5:05 p.m. today.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the Senator 
from Washington to present her amendment, I thought I would take a 
couple of minutes to talk about a certain section of this longstanding 
debate.
  The day before yesterday, the discussion of the core policy of this 
piece of legislation was that we would leave and not tax the interest 
buildup on education savings accounts so that they would compound 
themselves more quickly as an incentive for people to open the 
accounts. We are told it will probably result in 14 million people 
opening an account of this nature, and it will bear the parents of 20 
million children, which is a little over a third of the entire 
population of children attending kindergarten through high school.
  So the reach of the legislation we are debating and amending is very 
large. But in the discussion, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts referred 
to the fact that when you leave, you don't collect a tax. In his mind, 
that is an expenditure; we didn't appropriate it necessarily, but by 
not collecting that revenue we, in a sense, are appropriating money.
  I find that a flawed theory. Under that context, every dime we do not 
take from a working family or an individual belongs to the Government, 
and only by the grace of the Government have we allowed it to stay in 
the family's checking account.
  I won't say that is a convoluted theory, but it is certainly foreign, 
I believe, to the genesis of American liberty which envisioned the 
proceeds of the wages that are earned by families and individuals in 
our country as belonging to them--the people who earned it. Thomas 
Jefferson warned us of Government's propensity to take too much from 
the laborer who produced the wealth or the income.
  So I thought I would take a minute or two to say that this Senator is 
among those who believe the wealth, the income, the paycheck belongs to 
the person who earned it, and Government should only, by the most 
urgent necessity, tax and remove that resource and thereby lessen the 
ability of that family or that individual to pursue their dreams and 
care for their family and its vision.
  This theory, which essentially is the view that everything that 
everybody produces belongs to us up here in Washington unless we just 
happen to gracefully leave it in the family's checking account, is not 
a healthy idea. And it has come up two or three times in the debate 
over these education savings accounts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I think under the previous order we 
would hear from Senator Murray on her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2821

        (Purpose: To provide for class size reduction programs)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2821.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering the 
Republican education agenda. I have listened carefully to the debate 
over the last several days.
  It seems to me the difference between the Democratic and Republican 
approaches couldn't be more clear. Democrats want to invest in policies 
that really make a difference for today's young people. On the other 
side, we are hearing the same old song and dance about tax cuts, 
vouchers, block grants, and savings accounts. I fear those policies 
will really weaken our public schools instead of strengthening them.
  The education savings account bill we are considering today would 
only help a very few wealthy families at the expense of everyone else. 
I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  We should be spending our limited time on the policies that parents 
and teachers know work--things such as smaller classes taught by fully 
qualified teachers. Those are the policies that time and time again 
have produced real results for our students --not tax schemes, not 
funding gimmicks, not policies that will drain money away from our 
public schools.
  That is why I am here this afternoon to introduce my class size 
amendment which will provide real help for students across the country.
  These education savings accounts will only help a few people with 
very high incomes. Unfortunately, families who aren't well off need 
more incentives to save for education. And this bill doesn't offer them 
any. For the 90 percent of Americans whose children attend public 
schools, this bill offers peanuts.
  The Joint Tax Committee found that the average benefit per child in 
public school would be between $3 and $7 per year over a 4-year period. 
This program is a backdoor voucher which will drain money away from our 
public schools and take scarce resources from students who need them 
most. All the while, this bill will do nothing to improve the quality 
of public education.
  I know I am not the only person in America who thinks we should be 
investing in the things that we know work in education. A recent poll 
was conducted for the National Education Association by two bipartisan 
research firms--a Democratic research firm and a Republican research 
firm. It found that Americans want specific policies--policies such as 
providing additional support for students with special needs, policies 
such as helping school districts attract quality teachers, and policies 
such as hiring 100,000 new, fully qualified teachers to reduce class 
sizes in our country. Those are some of the specific, concrete policies 
on which the American people want us to focus.
  In the same poll, the American public chose education as its No. 1 
priority over tax cuts by a margin of two to one.
  The bill on the floor today ignores the priorities the American 
people are asking us to address.
  As a former school board member, let me give my colleagues a real-
life opportunity to test this poll's funding.
  Monday night, for many districts, is ``School Board Meeting Night'' 
across the country. If my colleagues want to know what the education 
priorities are at home, all they have to do is attend a local school 
board meeting. Senators will have the ability to see locally- elected 
officials, respected community activists, parents, and students gather 
to discuss priorities and real problems.
  School boards all across the country face very tough issues. I know 
what service on a school board is. I know what school boards are 
dealing with.

[[Page 1889]]

They are grappling with class size, hiring quality teachers, 
deteriorating facilities, textbooks, curricula, and other issues.
  I know what school boards are not dealing with. School boards are not 
debating tax cuts and vouchers. School boards are not considering 
diverting revenues from public schools to private schools. But that is 
what this bill would do.
  This is the wrong education debate for our country. The right 
education debate gives our students the tools and the support they need 
to reach their full potential. Every child in America deserves a well-
trained teacher and a small class size. When a student's hand goes up 
in the classroom, she should get the help she needs and the attention 
she needs. That is why this Senate should pass this class-size 
amendment.
  I am offering this amendment for one reason--to continue the progress 
we have made in classrooms across America for the last 2 years. As a 
former teacher, I can tell you, it makes a difference if you have 18 
kids in your classroom instead of 35. Parents know it, teachers know 
it, and students know it. By working together over the past 2 years, we 
have been able to bring real results to students.
  This year, 1.7 million students across the country are learning in 
classrooms that are less crowded than the year before; 1.7 million 
students are in classrooms where teachers can spend more time teaching 
and less time dealing with discipline problems; and 1.7 million 
students are in classrooms where they can get the individual attention 
they need and where they will learn the basics.
  That is progress. But it is not enough. There are still too many 
students in overcrowded classrooms. So far, we have hired 29,000 new 
fully qualified teachers. My class size amendment will continue our 
progress.
  I recently visited a classroom in Takoma, WA, where they have taken 
our class size money and put it into their first grade classrooms. Now 
67 classrooms in that district have 15 students in the first grade. The 
teachers will say they know this is the first year they will be able to 
say at the end of the year that every child in their first grade 
classroom will be able to read. There will be direct results from this 
program we have passed the last 2 years. They could not make those 
promises with 30 kids in the classroom. They now can as a result of the 
work we have done.
  I wish to take a moment to go through the specifics of my amendment. 
This amendment uses $1.2 billion to reduce class size, particularly in 
the early grades, first through third, using highly qualified teachers 
to improve educational achievement for regular and special needs 
children.
  This amendment targets the money where it is needed within the 
States. Within States, 100 percent of the funds go directly to local 
school districts on a formula which is 80 percent need-based and 20 
percent enrollment based. Small school districts that alone may not 
generate enough Federal funding to pay for a new teacher may join 
together to generate enough funds to pay for a new teacher or to 
institute a top-notch recruiting program.
  This amendment ensures local decisionmaking. Each local school 
district board makes the decisions about hiring and training their new 
teachers. The school district must use at least 75 percent of the funds 
to hire new certified teachers.
  This amendment promotes teacher quality. Up to 25 percent of the 
funds may be used to test new teachers or to provide professional 
development to new and current teachers or of regular and special needs 
children. The program ensures that all teachers are fully qualified. 
Under the amendment, school districts hire State-certified teachers so 
every student will learn from a highly trained professional.
  This amendment is flexible. Any school district that has already 
reduced class sizes in early grades, to 18 or fewer children, may then 
use the funds to further reduce class sizes in the early grades, to 
reduce class size in kindergarten or other grades, or carry out 
activities to improve teacher quality, including professional 
development.
  The class size program is simple and efficient. School districts fill 
out a one-page form which is available online. The Department of 
Education sends them the money to hire the new teachers based on need 
and enrollment.
  Let me add that teachers have told me they have never seen money move 
as quickly from Congress to the classrooms as they have under our class 
size bill.
  Finally, this amendment ensures accountability. The amendment 
clarifies that the funds are supplementary and cannot replace current 
spending on teachers or teacher salaries. School districts fill out no 
new forms to get the funding, they just add a description of their 
class size reduction plan to a current form. Accountability is assured 
by requiring school districts to send a report card in plain English to 
their local community, including information about how achievement has 
improved as a result of reducing class size.
  Those are the specifics of my amendment. I know this amendment will 
help my students. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. REID. Before the Senator from Washington leaves the floor, I say 
to her and Members of the Senate how much I appreciate her leadership 
on this issue. She has been the voice speaking out on this issue time 
and time again. I think we in the Senate should listen to someone with 
experience. She served on the school boards we hear so much about. Why 
do we not do what the school boards want? That is what we are trying to 
do. We are doing that through the voice of someone who has served on a 
school board, who taught in preschool, who has been a voice on 
education.
  On behalf of the people of the State of Nevada, I express my 
appreciation to Senator Murray for leading the Senate down this road of 
talking about the important matters that affect public education. That 
is what the debate should be: What can we do to provide a better 
education for the more than 90 percent of children in America today who 
go to public schools.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I wish to make 
several points. The first point is the Senator from Washington 
characterizes the education savings account as something that would 
only benefit a handful of people who are wealthy. I believe that is 
pretty close to what she said.
  According to the Joint Tax Committee, 70 percent of those who would 
utilize the education savings account make $75,000 or less. This is not 
something for anybody driving around in a black limousine. It is wrong 
to characterize it otherwise.
  The second point: the criteria for these educational savings accounts 
are identical to the President's criteria for the higher education 
savings account. The same folks who use these savings accounts are the 
ones who were applauded by that side of the aisle when they created a 
higher education savings account. There is no difference. Every ``t'' 
is crossed and every ``i'' is dotted exactly the way it was done on the 
other side of the aisle. We cannot have it both ways. If they are not 
rich over here, they are not rich over here. The point is, the vast 
majority of accounts are utilized by middle-class folks and low-income 
people.
  No. 2, this is the fourth attempt from the other side of the aisle to 
gut the creation of the education savings account. Who do they leave 
behind? The 14 million American families, 20 million American children 
who would save on their own $12 billion that would go to help 
education. By simply cutting out the funds as the amendment of the 
Senator does, $1.2 billion, she robs the Nation of $12 billion in 
resources that would come freely from families investing in these 
accounts utilizing their own money. It is bad economic policy to leave 
$12 billion sitting on the table.
  The Senator in her amendment strikes the provision that allows 1 
million students in college to receive prepaid tuition in the 43 States 
that do that, including her State, from their prepaid tuition being 
taxed when they

[[Page 1890]]

get it. We are trying to leave the resource there so it can be used for 
the college education. The amendment guts it.
  Last, the proponents of the amendment, as is so often the case, say 
we will do something for you. But read the language under ``use of the 
funds.'' They are mandatory uses. It is a long series. If you want to 
play ball with the Federal Government, you have to hopscotch through 
every hurdle, every loophole, every this, every that, page after page, 
reports, qualifications--mandatory.
  It is reinforcement of the entire concept of oversight by the big 
principal in Washington. That is not what America wants. It wants its 
schools governed at home.
  Time is limited; we have 5 minutes remaining in our time. I see 
Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, and I yield the remainder of our time 
to Senator Gregg of New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I 
appreciate his hard work on this bill. He has certainly outlined most 
eloquently the importance of these savings accounts to education and 
how the dollars that will be going into the savings accounts will have 
a multilayer effect and grow radically, thus increasing the opportunity 
for more and more kids and more and more families to experience the 
American dream of going to college. They are using these dollars for 
other educational activities.
  I wish to speak specifically to the amendment of the Senator from 
Washington State. This amendment is misdirected. It has come to the 
floor on a number of other occasions and it has been misdirected every 
time it came to the floor. It has been put forward by the 
administration as basically a polling amendment. I mean they went out 
and polled the term and then they concluded that term polled well so 
they came forward with a program based on that term.
  It does not have anything to do with quality education. Study after 
study has shown the issue of quality education is not tied directly to 
class size. It is tied to the quality of the teacher in the classroom. 
In fact, there was a recent study done which studied all the other 
studies; 300 studies were looked at by Eric Hanushek of the University 
of Rochester. His conclusion was this, looking at 300 different studies 
on this specific issue: Class size reduction has not worked; the 
quality of the teacher is much more important than class size.
  Equally important to that issue is the fact this is a straw dog 
amendment; 43 of the States in this country already are below what the 
President wants in class size ratio, 18-1. So the amendment really is 
not for the purpose of reducing class size; it is for the purpose of 
putting out a political statement.
  Let's do something about education. That is what the Republican side 
of this aisle wants to do. So we have come forward with something 
called the Teacher Empowerment Act. Rather than having Washington put a 
straitjacket on the communities where they have to use this money for 
one thing and one thing only, which is to hire new teachers--many 
school systems not needing new teachers; what they really need is keep 
the good teachers they already have and they are having trouble doing 
that--rather than having this straitjacket from Washington delivered by 
the Clinton administration and the Members on the other side of the 
aisle, we said: Let's give the local communities the opportunity to 
give them what they need, the Teacher Empowerment Act.
  It says we will take the funds suggested by the Senator from 
Washington and put them in the proper vehicle, which happens to be the 
Elementary and Secondary School Act, which is being marked up today, 
and we will allow those funds to be used by local communities to assist 
in addressing their teacher needs. They can use it for teacher 
education; they can use it for paying good teachers more money to keep 
them there in the school system; they can use it to send teachers out 
to get better qualifications and more certification or, if they want, 
they can use it to hire teachers to reduce class size.
  We give the local school system a series of options, which is exactly 
what should happen. We in Washington should not be saying to every 
school system in America that in order to get these funds it has to add 
another teacher because that may not be what the local school system 
needs. There are numerous school systems in this country that have 
great teachers that they are losing because the tremendous demand of 
the marketplace is taking those teachers out of the school system and 
putting them in the private sector, especially in the math and science 
areas. So what that school system needs is the ability to pay them a 
differential, pay them a little more money. This gives them that 
option.
  The Republican proposal is a logical proposal. It is a proposal that 
addresses the needs of the school systems, the needs of the principals 
in the school systems, the needs of the superintendents in the school 
systems and, most important, the needs of the teachers in the school 
systems and the needs of the parents whose children those teachers 
teach, rather than addressing some polling data that happens to make a 
nice political statement but ends up straitjacketing the local 
communities and the parents and teachers in those local communities.
  That is the difference. To begin with, the Coverdell bill is the 
wrong place for this amendment. The amendment is bad to begin with, as 
I just noted, and I noted why it is bad, but it has no place in this 
bill. We are in the process of marking this specific issue up in 
committee. In fact, today we heard from the Senator from Washington; we 
heard from the Senator from Massachusetts as to how class size was 
going to be one of the two essential issues they intended to raise in 
the committee as we marked up the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. That is very appropriate. That is where the debate should occur.
  In that bill already is the TEA bill, the Teacher Empowerment Act. 
They don't like it because it gives freedom to local school districts 
and they want to keep control in Washington. I can understand that is 
their political philosophy, but that debate should occur in the 
committee of jurisdiction on the bill appropriate to the issue. It 
should not occur on this bill, which is a bill to expand and empower 
parents and kids so they can go to college, so they can pursue other 
types of educational excellence activities.
  The Coverdell idea is a superb idea and it certainly should not be 
mucked up, the water should not be discolored as a result of putting 
out what is basically a proposal that has no relevance to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will just take a few minutes to wrap up and then I can 
yield my time. A number of Senators want to vote. They have other 
business to do.
  Let me respond to the Senators from Georgia and New Hampshire. The 
Senator from New Hampshire is correct. We are in markup on the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act in committee. Unfortunately, we 
just gave political speeches this morning and were not able to offer 
our amendments and go through that process. I know the committee 
intends to do that, but the majority decided what was going to be on 
the floor today--their education policy. This is what we are debating. 
This is our opportunity as Democrats to say what we believe is 
important.
  We believe clearly that we have a choice. We can take very important 
Federal resources and offer them to families who are wealthy enough to 
put $2,000 away and get $3 to $7 back in a tax cut, or we can use that 
money for programs that we know work.
  The Senator from New Hampshire indicated he did not believe class 
size reduction worked. Let me tell you two things, Mr. President. First 
of all, a

[[Page 1891]]

very important study that was completed, a STAR study from Tennessee, 
that followed kids in the early grades, first through third grade, in 
small classes, and then watched their progress until they graduated a 
year ago, clearly found students in small classes, as we are asking 
this money to go for, had fewer discipline problems, graduated with 
higher scores in math and English, and in much greater numbers went on 
to college.
  What Member of this Senate has not been out here to say those are 
goals every one of us has: Better discipline and higher scores in math 
and English and higher rates of students going on to college? That is 
clearly a goal for all of us in public education. It is the STAR study 
and other studies that have shown it works.
  We are saying if we want to provide this money, we should do it for 
programs that work for kids. The mandatory provision the Senator from 
Georgia spoke to in the bill is, I believe, 13 lines long and merely 
says what this money goes for is for class size reduction with a 
quality teacher in every classroom. It provides some of those funds for 
training those teachers because that is a critical issue. I absolutely 
agree.
  Finally, let me say from a personal perspective, having been in a 
classroom as a teacher with a large class and a small class, I can tell 
you what the difference is. The difference between the large class and 
small class is the difference between crowd control and teaching; 
having the time to work individually with students, to understand what 
their needs are, to help them get through the difficult processes of 
learning in the early grades: Reading, writing and math. Those are very 
basic skills that a child needs to have.
  It is very clear to me we have a choice between a few families in 
this country who can afford to put away several thousand dollars a year 
and only get $3 to $7 back--a very few families--or we can use this 
money in a way that absolutely makes a difference in early grades for 
our children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ask them to 
seriously consider what education policies we believe are important for 
families across this country. I believe reducing class size, providing 
quality teachers, making sure our schools are safe, are important 
criteria and a responsibility for us at the Federal level, to work in 
partnerships with our State and local school boards to make sure every 
child in this country--every child, not just a few--is able to learn to 
read and write and be a success.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support Senator Murray's amendment to 
provide $1.2 billion dollars to help reduce class size in the early 
grades by hiring 100,000 new teachers. The Coverdell bill does nothing 
to help improve public schools that need assistance. Instead it diverts 
scare resources to wealthy families in private schools, when 90% of the 
nation's students attend public schools.
  Research has documented what parents and teachers have always known 
intuitively--smaller classes improve student achievement. In small 
classes, students receive more individual attention and instruction. 
Students with learning disabilities are identified earlier, and their 
needs can be met without placing them in costly special education. In 
small classes, teachers are better able to maintain discipline. Parents 
and teachers can work together more effectively to support children's 
education. We also know that overcrowded classrooms undermine 
discipline and decrease student morale.
  Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee. 
Students in small classes performed better than students in large 
classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade. Follow-up 
studies show that the gains lasted through at least eighth grade, and 
the gains were larger for minority students.
  STAR students were less likely to drop out of high school, and more 
likely to graduate in the top 25% of their classes. Research also shows 
that STAR students in smaller classes in grades K-3 were between 6 and 
13 months ahead of their regular-class peers in math, reading, and 
science in grades 4, 6, and 8. Michigan, California, Nevada, Florida, 
Texas, Utah, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Oklahoma, Iowa, Minnesota, 
Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Wisconsin have initiated or 
considered STAR-like class size reduction efforts.
  In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program 
is helping to reduce class size in grades K-3 in low-income 
communities. A study found that students in the smaller classes had 
significantly greater improvements in reading, math, and language tests 
than students in bigger classes. The largest achievement gains were 
among African-American boys.
  In Flint, Michigan, efforts over the last three years to reduce class 
size in grades K-3 have produced a 44% increase in reading scores and 
an 18% increase in math scores.
  Because of the Class Size Reduction Act, 1.7 million children are 
benefitting from smaller classes this year. 29,000 were hired with 
fiscal year 1999 funds. 1,247 are teaching in the first grade, reducing 
class sizes from 23 to 17. 6,670 are teaching in the second grade, 
reducing class size from 23 to 18. 6,960 are teaching in the third 
grade, reducing class size from 24 to 18. 2,900 are in grades 4-12. 290 
special education teachers have been hired. And, on average, 7% of the 
funds are being used for professional development for these new 
teachers.
  The Boston School District received $3.5 million this year to reduce 
class size. As a result, Boston was able to hire 40 new teachers, 
reducing class size from 28 students to 25 in the first and second 
grades.
  In Mississippi, Jackson Public Schools used its $1.3 million federal 
grant to hire 20 new teachers to reduce class size in 1st grade 
classrooms from 21 to 15, and in 2nd and 3rd grade classrooms from 21 
to 18.
  In New Hampshire, the Manchester School District received $634,000 
and was able to hire 19 new teachers in grades 1-3, particularly in its 
English as a Second Language and special education programs, reducing 
the average class size from 28 students to 18.
  In Ohio, the Columbus Public School District has hired 58 fully 
certified teachers with funds from the class size reduction program, 
and placed these teachers in 14 high-poverty, low-performing schools, 
reducing class size in grades 1 to 3 from 25 to 15. Along with proven-
effective reading programs such as Success for All, class size 
reduction is a central part of efforts by the City of Columbus to 
improve low-performing schools.
  Senator Murray's amendment is an important amendment which deserves 
the Senate's consideration, and I urge the Senate to approve it. The 
nation's children and the nation's future deserve no less.


                           Amendment No. 2865

  Mr. COVERDELL. By a previous unanimous consent agreement, I believe 
the order of business is to move to the Wellstone amendment for a vote. 
Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I assume we will proceed to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2865. 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) 
and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin

[[Page 1892]]


     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inonye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrien
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Craig
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Inhofe
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bond
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 2865) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2821

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Murray 
amendment.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
vote in this series be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been called for?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Washington yields back her time. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2821. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Missouri Mr. Bond) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bond
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 2821) was rejected.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2860

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I believe the next order of business is 
the Hutchison amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hutchison 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2860) was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the Mack-Hatch amendment No. 2827 and that following the 
reporting by the clerk, the Senate proceed to a period for morning 
business with Members permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  I further ask consent that the Senate resume the pending bill at 9:30 
a.m. on Thursday and that there be 30 minutes equally divided in the 
usual form, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Mack-Hatch 
amendment. I ask that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In light of this agreement, there will be no further 
votes this evening and the first vote tomorrow will occur at 10 a.m.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for information purposes, it is my 
understanding in the morning we will do the Hatch amendment. It is my 
further understanding after that we will move to the Roth amendment.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes, I have the consent request I will read.
  Mr. REID. That is fine.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I further ask consent that following the disposition 
of the Hatch amendment, Senator Roth or his designee be recognized in 
order to call up the Roth amendment. I also ask consent that 
immediately upon reporting of the amendment, Senator Graham of Florida 
be recognized in order to offer a second-degree amendment relating to 
offsets.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 30 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form with respect to both amendments. Finally, I 
ask that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed 
to a vote on or in relation to the Graham amendment, to be followed by 
a vote on or in relation to the Roth amendment, as amended, if amended.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that 
there be a number assigned to the Roth amendment. Do we have a number 
on that? Is this the one that is going to be offered for the purpose of 
substituting original text? We want to make sure if, in fact, the Roth 
amendment is adopted the legislation remains amendable.
  Mr. COVERDELL. There is no intent to alter that plan.
  Mr. REID. My only other suggestion is that the time be 1 hour equally 
divided. We believe we can do it more quickly, but at this time, there 
is a request for more time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It says 30 minutes for each amendment. Does the 
Senator want to make it an hour for each one?
  Mr. REID. I believe 30 minutes for each amendment will be adequate, 
but let's cover the phone call we just received.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I modify the unanimous consent request 
to read according to the request of the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Also, Mr. President, we will have no objection, but for the 
information of Senators, especially those on my side, following the 
disposition of the Roth amendment, as amended by Graham, we are going 
to move to the Boxer amendment, the Feinstein-Sessions amendment, and 
thereafter, we will probably move to either the amendment of Senator 
Dorgan or Senator Kennedy or Senator Schumer. We have their amendments 
lined up. The first two will be Boxer and Feinstein. We should be able 
to move through the next amendments in the next day or two.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In conjunction with the Senator's question about the 
Roth amendment, I think this language will clarify it. And with respect 
to the Roth amendment, if agreed to, it will be considered as original 
text for the purpose of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2827

    (Purpose: To eliminate the marriage penalty in the reduction in 
  permitted contributions to education individual retirement accounts)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], for Mr. Mack, for 
     himself and Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 2827.

  The amendment is as follows:


[[Page 1893]]

       In subsection (a) of section 101, add at the end the 
     following:
       (4) Elimination of the marriage penalty in the reduction in 
     permitted contributions.--Section 530(c)(1) (relating to 
     reduction in permitted contributions based on adjusted gross 
     income) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``$150,000'' in subparagraph (A)(ii) and 
     inserting ``$190,000'', and
       (B) by striking ``$10,000'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``$30,000''.

                          ____________________