AND HERE WE ARE DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT TO FILL A NONEXISTENT
           GAP TO GIVE SOME MONDAY TOY PEOPLE WHO ALREADY MADE A CHOICE TO
           SEND THEIR KIDS TO THESE SCHOOLS. THAT'S WHO MOST BENEFITS BY
           THE LEGISLATION ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. THE
           PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT BY THIS LEGISLATION ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN SAVE
           THAT KIND OF MONEY. THEY ARE THE PEOPLE WHOSE KIDS ARE PROBABLY
           ALREADY IN A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL OR A PRIVATE SCHOOL. THEY ARE THE

           KIDS WHO ARE ALREADY A VEILING THEMSELVES OF THOSE BENEFITS.
           NOW, I AM NOT SAYING TO MY COLLEAGUE THERE IS NO VALUE IN
           PROVIDING FOR ONE OF THOSE PARENTS RELIEF. THAT'S WHY WE VOTED
           FOR TAX RELIEF. THAT'S WHY WE PROVIDE STUDENT LOANS. WE DO LOTS
           OF THINGS TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF RELIEF. AND I AM ALL FOR
           THAT. BUT LET'S GET OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT, MR. PRESIDENT. IT
           SEEMS TO ME THAT THE FIRST OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES
           SENATE IS TO COME HERE, EMBRACING AN OVERALL CONCEPT. AND I

           MIGHT ADD TO MY COLLEAGUFROM GEORGIA LOOK, HERE WE ARE BEING
           ASKED TO SPEND $1.1 PLUBILLION DOLLARS. WHAT'S THE PRISE AMOUNT?
           $2 BILLION. IT IS A VACUUM. I AM BEING ASKED TO GIVE $2 BILLION
           TO PARENTS WHOSE KIDS MAY GO TO RELIGIOUS OR PRIVATE SCHOOL
           WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THE REST OF THE BUDGET IS GOING TO BE
           FOR ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS I HAVE TALKED ABOUT. ARE THEY GOING TO BE CUT?
           ARE WE GOING TO HAVE LESS MONEY FOR AFTER SCHOOL?

           ARE WE GOING TO HAVE LESS MONEY FOR CHAPTER 1?
           HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IN THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM THIS YEAR?
           HOW MUCH MONEY WILL WE HAVE FOR HEAD START?
           IF I HAVE TO CUT THOSE OR CAN'T HAVE AS MUCH AS I WANT TO HAVE,
           WILL WE THEN TAKE THE $2 BILLION AND PUT IT INTO THIS?
           THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TIMELY, TO THE NOT APPROPRIATE AND I HOPE IT
           IS NOT A STATEMENT OF THE FULL MEASURE OF PRIORITY OF OUR
           COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. I REALLY HOPE IT IS

           NOT. MR. PRESIDENT, THERE ARE OTHER COLLEAGUES WAITING TO
           SPEAK. I HAVE GONE ON LONGER THAN I INTENDED. BUT I HOPE THIS
           YEAR CAN BE A YEAR IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES SENATE CAN FIND
           ITS WAY TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE DEBATE, TO HAVE ACROSS THE
           AISLE DLOGUE, TO BRING OURSELVES TOGETHER IN SPIRIT OF
           COMPROMISE. AND SO FAR THE ONLY COMPROMISE I HAVE SEEN WITH
           RESPECT TO THE SO-CALLED STRAIGHT A'S PLAN AND THE APPROACH OF
           OUR FRIENDS, HAS BEEN ON OUR SIDE OF THE FENCE. SO IT IS MY
           HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT REAL DIALOGUE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO

           IT AND I THANK THE CHAIR.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA. MR. COVERDELL: MR. PRESIDENT?
           I'M GOING TO TRY TO CONFINE MY REMARKS TO THE PROPOSAL BEFORE
           THE SENATE. I WILL MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS REGARDING MY GOOD
           COLLEAGUE FROM MASSACHUSETTS. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD SAY TO HIM
           THAT THIS $7 ROUTINE IS IT EXCEEDINGLY MISLEADING. TWO, THREE

           OF YOU HAVE USED THAT. IF $7 WAS ALL WE WERE TALKING ABOU THEN
           A WHY GET WORKED UP ABOUT IT, JUST GO, B, IF $7 PER YEAR IS THE
           ONLY ADVANTAGE OUT OF THIS ACCOUNT WHICH IS FOUR TIMES WHAT THE
           PRESIDENT PROPOSED, THEN I GUESS THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL WAS
           WORTH ONLY $2.25.
           

           MR. KERRY: WITH THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR AN ANSWER?
           
           

           MR. COVERDELL: YES.
           

           MR. KERRY: LET ME SAY I SAID IN MY COMMENTS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
           IS REALLY NOT THE KEY. I SAID -- I THROW AWAY THE SEVEN AS NOT
           PARTICULARLY MOVING, BUT THE $7 COMES FROM THE JOINT TAX
           COMMITTEE ESTIMATE. AND I BELIEVE THE JOINT TAX COMMITTEE IS
           GENERALLY ACCEPTED, SO THIS IS NOT --
           

           MR. COVERDELL: MY POINT IS, IF THAT'S THE CASE, IT IS WORTH
           FOUR TIMES THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL.
           

           MR. KERRY: I DON'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING PRESIDENT CLINTON DOES
           OR HAS DONE.
           

           MR. COVERDELL: I UNDERSTAND. I WILL READ YOU ANOTHER COMMENTS.
           THE REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY VICE PRESIDENT GORE TO THE
           MINNESOTA COMMUNITY TECHNICAL COLLEGE WHERE HE SAYS, "HERE IS
           MY
           
           IDEA: WE SHOULD CREATE NEW 401-K ACCOUNTS LIKE THE 401-K PLANS
           THAT HELP YOU SAVE FOR RETIREMENT, BUT THESE ACCOUNTS WILL
           ALLOW EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES TO CONTRIBUTE UP TO $2,500. FOR

           EACH WORKING PERSON TO PAY FOR COLLEGE OR JOB TRAINING
           EXPENSES. MONEY THAT YOU CAN SAVE AND WITHDRAW TAX-FREE. YOU
           COULD USE THIS ACCOUNT FOR YOURSELF, YOUR SPOUSE, EVEN YOUR
           CHILD'S COLLEGE TUITION." THIS IS IDENTICAL TO THE PROSAL
           THAT'S BEFORE US.
           

           MR. KERRY: MR. PRESIDENT, MAY I RESPOND TO MY FRIEND?
           
           

           MR. COVERDELL: CERTAINLY.
           

           MR. KERRY: I AGAIN THROUGH THAT DISTINCTION AND LET ME
           UNDERSOAR COULD THE DISTINCTION TO MY FRIEND. THE VICE
           PRESIDENT, NUMBER ONE, LAID OUT THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SET
           FORWARD BY ANYBODY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
           HE SET FORWARD A PLAN THAT INCLUDED $115 BILLION FOR A TRUST
           FUND OVER TEN YEARS. HE SET FORWARD A PLAN TO ATTRACT
           PRINCIPALS TO DEAL WITH TEACHERS' PAY, TO DEAL WITH STANDARDS.

           IT WAS A BROAD-BASED PLAN, AND THE SECTION WHICH THE SENATOR
           FROM GEORGIA REFERS TO, DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE, SECONDARY
           AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, IT IS COLLEGE AND JOB TRAINING.
           HISTORICALLY -- AND I DREW THIS DISTINCTION -- THE CONGRESS OF
           THE UNITED STATES HAS ALWAYS DRAWN A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
           HIGHER EDUCATION STRUCTURE AND THE SECONDARY AND ELEMENTARY
           STRUCTURE. AND THE PROBLEMS THAT I CITED ARE PRECISELY THE
           REASON WHY YOU NEED TO HAVE A BROAD-BASED APPROACH BEFORE YOU

           THROW ANY PIECEMEAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION AT IT.
           

           MR. COVERDELL: LET ME ADDRESS THAT AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU MADE
           MUCH OF TS TODAY AS OTHERS HAVE. THIS IS, OF COURSE, A PIECE OF
           LEGISLATION FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. IT HAS BEEN VETTED
           THREE TIMES BEFORE THE SENATE. IT HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE SENATE
           WITH 59 VOTES. ITS COSPONSOR IS ROBERT TORRICELLI OF NMG NMG
           AND ABOUT TEN OF YOU,-- --OF NEW JERSEY AND ABOUT TEN OF YOU,
           IT IS BIPARTISAN, THERE IS NO WAY TO SUGGEST THAT THERE WON'T

           BE A FULL DEBATE THAT OCCURS ON THE ISSUE WHEN THE
           REAUTHORIZATION OF EDUCATION, SECONDARY EDUCATION COMES BEFORE
           US, WHICH WILL PROBABLY BE SPRING. BECAUSE THERE IS NOT
           CONSENSUS AMONG THAT COMMITTEE. I'M NOT ON THAT COMMITTEE, I
           DON'T IF THE SENATOR IS OR NOT. BUT THIS COMES FROM THE
           SCOMEELT. THIS IS ONE COMPONENT OF WHAT CAN BE -- COMMITTEE.
           THIS IS ONE COMPONENT OF WHAT CAN BE DONE. IT IS TAX POLICY. IT
           IS CHARACTERIZED AS SOME LITTLE PIECE THAT IS GOING TO SOMEHOW

           CORRUPT OR BECOME A HURDLE IN FRONT OF THE BROADER DISCUSSION
           THAT WILL COME WITH THIS OTHER LEGISLATION, AND I FIND THAT
           PRETTY DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE
           FACT OF PREVIOUS SENATE ACTIONS ON THE LEGISLATION. I THINK IT
           UNFAIR TO ARACTERIZE THIS AS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION DESIGNED
           FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THAT IT SOMEHOW AVOIDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

           THAT'S JUST NOT SO. THE SAME SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT YOU
           HAVE BEEN QUOTING WOULD HAVE US UNDERSTAND THAT THE EDUCATION
           SAVINGS ACCOUNT WILL PRIMARILY BENEFIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BUT NOT
           JUST PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 70% OF THE FAMILIES WHO OPEN THESE
           ACCOUNTS -- AND I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT THIS -- YOU COVERED IT,
           YOU DON'T CONSIDER THIS THE BROAD BASE. NEITHER DO I -- BUT IT
           DOES AFFECT 14 MILLION FAMILIES AND 20 MILLION CHILDREN WHICH

           ARE HALF, RIGHT AFTER HALF, JUST FIVE MILLION LESS THAN HALF OF
           THE ENTIRE POPULATION. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. 70% OF THOSE
           FAMILIES, THEIR CHILDREN ARE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 30% ARE IN
           PRIVATE. THE DIVISION OF THE MONEY IS 50/50. IN OTHER WORDS,
           HALF THE MONEY THAT THIS GENERATES FLOWS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND
           HALF TO PRIVATE OR I ASSUME HOME. NOW THAT'S NOT INSIGNIFICANT

           THAT'S ABOUT $12 BILLION THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROPRIATE. IT
           IS VOLUNTARILY BROUGHT FORWARD. INVOLVING THOSE FAMILIES WITH
           THEIR CHILDREN AND WITH THEIR NEEDS. I DON'T FIND THAT -- IT IS
           NOT APPROPRIATE TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS A PROGRAM DESIGNED FOR
           PRIVATE SCHOOLS. WILL PARENTS WHO HAVE CHILDREN IN PRIVATE
           SCHOOLS USE IT?
           YES. THEY WILL PROBABLY TEND TO USE IT MORE, WHICH IS.HALF THE
           MONEY GOES THERE. I THINK-- --WHICH IS WHY HALF THE MONEY GOES

           THERE. BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF CAUSING A PERSON TO WHICH CAN
           SCHOOL, THE IMPLICATION IS THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THEM TO GO, IT
           IS NOT MEANT FOR THEM TO CHANGE SCHOOLS.
           

           MR. KERRY: I APPRECIATE THE FAIR-MINDED FRIEND OF GEORGIA
           ENGAGES IN A GOOD DIALOGUE ON THESE AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
           FIRST, WE ARE SENT HERE TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT THE PRIORITIES OF
           THE COUNTRY. NOW, WHEN I SEE CHAPTER 1 UNDERFUNDED, OR I SEE
           URBAN CENTERS WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE COMPUTERS, AND I SEE SO

           MANY KIDS IN SO MANY PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WHOSE FAMILIES CAN'T
           AFFORD ANY OFTHE AMENITIES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE, I FIND IT
           VERY HARD AS A MATTER OF CHOICE TO SUGGEST THAT EVEN THAT 50%
           IS APPROPRIATE HI SPENT. NOW, I DON'T -- I AM NOT ARGUING WITH
           YOU. I AM NOT SUGGESTING TO YOU -- I'M NOT SAYING SOME FAMILY
           IN PUBLIC SCHOOL MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM THIS. I UNDERSTAND SOME
           PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE UNIFORM CODES AND A PARENT MAY BE ABLE TO

           GO BY A PORTION OF A UNIFORM. $7 A YEAR, DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH
           THAT IS GOING TDO, BUT YOU KNOW IF YOU ARE DOING IT K-12 THAT'S
           THE INTEREST. THE ONLY BENEFIT HERE UNDER THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
           RULE IS THE TAX BENEFIT OF THE INTEREST-FREE VINGS. SO YOU CAN
           WITHDRAW THE MONEY THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT,
           BUT ALL YOU ARE REALLY GETTING A BENEFIT ON IS THE TAX-FREE
           COMPONENT. LESS SAY YOU PUT $500 IN THERE AND YOU GOT TO DRAW

           IT OUT IN TWO YEARS AT 6% OR 5% WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE EARNING
           NOWADAYS, THESE THINGS AREN'T EVEN MARKETABLE, NONE OF THE
           MAJOR HOUSES ARE MARKETING THEM, SO YOU WILL EARN BASE INTEREST
           ON IT AND YOU WILL NOT GET VERY MUCH MONEY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
           THAT. SO, WHEN YOU'VE GOT VERY FEW RESOURCES AND THAT'S HOW YOU
           DIVIDE THEM UP, I JUST SAY TO THE SENATOR, I DON'T -- WHAT'S
           THE JUSTIFICATION?
           
           

           MR. COVERDELL: YOU MAKE MY POINT. SO LITTLE INVESTED ON OUR
           PART THAT CAUSES THEM TO DO SO MUCH. I AM SORT OF STUNNED THAT
           PEOPLE WOULD BE INNOCENTED. WHY WOULD WE FOR THIS TYPE OF
           INVESTMENT NOT WANT TO PRODUCE THE $12 BILLION IN NEW RESOURCES
           THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO. PEOPLE DO IT ON THEIR OWN, NOT TO
           MEN'S THE CONNECTION THAT OCCURS BETWEEN THE PARENT AND THE
           STUDENT.
           

           MR. KERRY: TO MY COLLEAGUE I SAY THIS, MR. PRESIDENT, TO MY
           COLLEAGUE, AND HE KNOWS THIS FULL WELL. THERE ARE MEMBERS OF
           THE UNITED STATES SENATE WHO BASICALLY HAVE FOR YEARS BEEN
           FIGHTING TO CREATE SORT OF A FULL-FLEDGED SUPPORT SYSTEM
           THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND/OR
           FOR SCHOOLS OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL STRUCTURE. THAT'S BEEN
           A GREAT FIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. AND WHAT I SAID IS,

           IT IS NOT THE $7 THAT'S CRITICAL HERE, IT'S THE PRINCIPLE. IF
           WADOPT IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE A NOTION THAT WE ARE NOW
           GOING TO IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE A FULL-FLEDGED SUPPORT
           SYSTEM FOR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS THROUGH
           ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY LEVEL, THAT'S NEW. AND ONCE WE HAVE
           MADE IT $7, YOU ARE GOING TO COME BACK HERE OR SOMEONE IS GOING
           TO COME BACK HERE NEXT YEAR AND SAY WE HAVEN'T GIVE THEM
           ENOUGH. WEAPON HAVE TO GIVE THEM $500 BECAUSE THAT'S

           MEANINGFUL. IF WE WERE WILLING TO SUPPORT PRIVATE OR RELIGIOUS
           SCHOOLS PREVIOUSLY WHAT WOULD STOP US FROM GIVING THEY WILL
           MORE MONEY NOW?
           THAT'S WHAT THIS FIGHT IS ABOUT. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE $,
           ALTHOUGH AS A MATTER OF CHOICE, I DON'T SEE WHY IT IS WE REWARD
           PEOPLE PEOPLE THAT WERE ALREADY CAPABLE OF SENDING THEIR KIDS
           TO THESE PLACES AND HAVE MADE THAT CHOICE VS.S THE PEOPLE
           HAVING THE HARDEST TIME MAKING ENDS MEET.
           

           MR. COVERDELL: WAIT A MINUTE, 70% OF ALL THESE FAMILIES GO TO
           MIDDLE INCOME, LOW INCOME.
           

           MR. KERRY: AS I SAID THE REAL FIGHT IS THE ISSUE OF THIS
           CONCEPT. COVER COULD-- --
           

           MR. COVERDELL: AND I CAN ACCEPT IT ON THOSE TERMS, BUT I DON'T
           THINK WE HAVE TAX THAD ACCOUNT IN APPROPRIATION OF THE U.S.
           TREASURY IN SUPPORT OF A SCHOOL. THERE HAS BEEN A
           CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OR DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, AND IT JUST
           WON'T FLOW. IF WE'VE DECIDED TO GRANT ACCOUNTS THAT PEOPLE'S
           OWN MONEY GOES INTO AND WE HAVE DECIDED WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAX
           THE INTEREST OF IT, THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT ANYBODY

           WOULD FIND THAT THAT IS A SUBSIDY OF PAROCHIAL EDUCATION.
{END: 2000/02/23 TIME: 18-00 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}