Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, what is the time situation on this particular amendment? We were in the midst of offering it. We set it aside. There is some time remaining. I would like to know what time is remaining under the original amendment.

Mr. COATS. I think it was well-understood by everybody involved in this amendment that I would offer it immediately after the stacked votes. I am here prepared to finish up my time. I would like to get it done, because my schedule is not going to allow me to wait for 35 minutes while someone does morning business.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I reserve that 2 minutes. There is someone on the opposing side who wants to begin using their 15 minutes. This is obviously the time. Perhaps if there is no opposition----

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure that the time remaining is reserved under the amendment.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, earlier in debate on this, I attempted to offer a compromise amendment partly because I believed, and still do, that the assessment of achieving reading and math standards is important information for parents, school boards, and others involved in education to make appropriate decisions about how changes should be accomplished so that we can achieve better results. There was a lot of complication with that because of the concern about the influence of the Department of Education over the design of the tests, the fact that some of this information assessment might not be accurately assessed. What I was attempting to accomplish was to give parents more knowledge so they could put more pressure on their local public schools to do a better job, to accept reforms. In many instances I was concerned because State departments of education are deceiving parents in an effort, from a political standpoint, to convince their constituents that their schools are doing just fine, that their students are doing as well as anyone. They are not administering tests, I think, or interpreting those tests in the way that gives parents adequate reflection of that. If we could structure this in a way to get an independent, outside the Department of Education test, voluntary on a State basis, it could be helpful. Well, we weren't able to do that. I think it is now entirely appropriate that the Senator's amendment, which essentially says set this aside until we authorize it, debate this thing, work it through, is the way to go. So I am going to support his amendment. I thank the Senator for the time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first of all, I compliment the author of the underlying legislation. It has been an extraordinary effort. It is a bipartisan effort, we ought to stress, and it is one that clearly offers long-term improvement in education and opportunities in education for many Americans. I thank them for their work on this, and I intend to support them when it comes to a vote. There has been a critique of the legislation in that most of the benefits will flow to middle-income Americans and above, and that we are not paying adequate attention to low-income Americans and particularly those who attend urban schools, so many of which are failing urban schools. That critique is really misplaced because that is not the intent of the bill. There have been other opportunities offered on this floor, again, in a bipartisan fashion. Senator Lieberman and I have joined forces on a number of occasions to try to address specifically the problems of low-income students, minority students, who are receiving inadequate educations, and each time those efforts have been met with a filibuster and defeated. There have been other initiatives. I have offered some, and other Members have offered some. We are going to continue to do that. So the critique is really misplaced. But in an effort to strengthen the underlying bill which we are addressing, I am offering this amendment which I will explain in a moment. It is clear that there will be Americans, a sizable number of Americans, who don't have the income to take advantage of the tax-free savings accounts that are created in this legislation. Under the best of circumstances, it would take them years to accumulate the amount of money necessary to utilize those funds for alternative means of education. We cannot afford years. We are losing people to the system, and it is an inadequate system. Let me take a moment to talk about that crisis that exists in urban education. A recent study published by Education Week points out just how desperate the situation has become. In 1997, just 43 percent of grade- school-age children attending urban schools met the basic standard for reading skills, and that ``basic,'' just for my colleagues' understanding, is defined as being able to read a very simple child's book or children's literature. Among children attending urban schools in high-poverty areas, basic reading ability rates fall to just 23 percent of students. Think of it: Fewer than one in three children attending schools in poor neighborhoods can read a simple story; two- thirds of nonurban students meet the basic standard for mathematics. Among urban students in high-poverty areas, this one-in-three statistic is truly disturbing. Looking at the area of science, while 65 percent of nonurban students are meeting the basic standard in science achievement, only 38 percent of urban students perform this, and in high-poverty schools, only 31 percent. So, again, fewer than one in three are meeting these standards. A public school system in which over two-thirds of our children are functionally illiterate in reading, in science, in math is a system that cannot and must not be defended. Yet, those who are opposing any efforts to try to move this system to improve it or reform it, to provide alternatives for children trapped in the system, are met with disdain, are met with challenges. The logic--actually, I should say the illogic--of the opponents of attempts at reform is difficult to understand, because it is literally condemning poor children to an inadequate education. The one chance they have to escape the plight that they live in is being denied them, because people want to maintain--some people want to maintain--the status quo, and the status quo is bankrupt. Every year, we debate, as I said, different proposals to permit these low-income children to escape the plight in which they find themselves. Every year, we talk about the need for competition to force public schools to reform the way in which they teach their children. And every year, we are met on the Senate floor with a filibuster by those who say, ``No; let's maintain the status quo in the name of absolute equality.'' One of the analogies that is often used is that we are just simply trying to throw lifeboats out and scholarships are just lifeboats that are not available to all; and if they are not available to all, then they shouldn't be available to anybody. A lot of us have seen the recent epic ``The Titanic.'' Fortunately, the opponents of the basis of the proposal that, if you can't help everybody, you shouldn't help anybody were not running the Titanic, because then everybody would have been denied an opportunity to escape on a lifeboat because there were not enough lifeboats for everybody. If we cannot help everybody all at once, we are not going to help anybody. That is the logic of the opponents of any attempt, whether it is this bill, whether it is the voucher bill that this Senator, Senator Lieberman, and others have been offering, or whether it is any other proposal that other Members have been offering. That is the logic of the opposition. It does not match up. Recently--I think it was just yesterday or maybe a couple days ago-- the President at a press conference with the Democratic leadership challenged the supporters of scholarships to make their case to the Nation, he said. The President said, ``You ought to do something rather than just talk about it.'' Mr. President, I don't know where you have been lately--well, maybe I do know, preoccupied with other matters--but if you will just look very closely, you will understand that things are being done by those who favor the proposal. We are doing something. Currently, there are 32 privately funded scholarship programs operating across this country. In virtually every major urban area of this Nation--New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Indianapolis, Albany, San Antonio, Atlanta, just to name a few--private citizens are joining forces to provide poor children a way out of collapsing public school systems. To date, these foundations have raised over $30 million and have provided assistance to over 13,000 children. Just this morning, we learned that a major private funder of private school choice announced a $50 million gift to San Antonio's program that will permit any low-income student in the San Antonio system to opt out of a public school if they are not getting an adequate education. I say we are putting our money where our mouths are. Individuals are stepping forward, people are addressing it and are doing so out of a matter of desperation, desperation that children are being left behind and are not buying into this idea that if you cannot do it for everybody right now, don't do it for anybody. The demand for this is rising. We are all familiar with the New York City Private Scholarship Foundation. When they announced they had 13 new scholarships for low-income children, they received 17,000 applications. Ten percent of the eligible population of New York said, ``Give us a chance. Give us something different.'' They were overwhelmed by the response. Last year, the Washington Scholarship Fund here in the District of Columbia announced plans to offer 1,000 new scholarships and received 7,500 requests. That represents 15 percent of the eligible population in the D.C. public schools. A recent poll of minority parents published last year found that two- thirds of them are crying out for some alternative for education. Low- income families in cities around the country are saying, ``We refuse to continue to allow our children to be condemned to schools which don't give them any chance to escape the poverty that they live in.'' My colleague, Senator Lieberman, has appealed to his party to say: We are the party of equality. We are the party that reaches out to help those who need help, and yet we are turning our backs on the very people our party is supposed to defend. We are condemning them to an inadequate education and therefore condemning them to a life in which they will not be able to participate in the American dream. The only way out of many of these areas in our urban cities is drugs, athletics, or education. One in 10,000 make it into college athletics. That is the statistics of all the kids playing basketball, baseball, and football: 1 in 10,000 gets a college scholarship. Out of that, the number is infinitesimal of those who can go on and actually earn a living playing professional sports. So while many dream of being the next Michael Jordan, the reality is that only 1 in about 100,000 or maybe a million is going to be that person or have that opportunity. The next alternative is drugs and crime. And the statistics there are appalling. Children are dying on the streets, as we speak, at tender ages because they think the way out of their plight--the only way out of their plight--is to move drugs. And that is a prescription for death, that is a prescription for incarceration, that is a prescription for failure. What do parents want? They understand those realities. They want their children to be educated, given the skills necessary to be able to enter today's workplace, given the education to be able to go on and further their education after high school. And they are not getting that in our urban schools. How does my amendment try to address this? We try to provide a little piece of a solution to the puzzle we are trying to put together, a mosaic we are trying to put together to try to get us out of this conundrum that tweaks the Tax Code a little bit to give a little extra encouragement to people who donate money to those scholarship funds. Under current law, a contribution to a 501(c)(3) organization that provides scholarships is deductible against income. My amendment would simply give them a 10 percent incentive to try to encourage more people to give more. We offset that so that it is paid for and revenue neutral. I offered an offset which I thought would be fairly attractive, but I could not get the votes to support it. I did not want to see my amendment fail on that basis, so we worked with the majority leader, we worked with Members, to try to find something that had been vented by the Finance Committee, had been approved as a potential offset. And I do not believe there is any controversy. We have tried to run all the traps on that in terms of the offset. I can describe the offset. It is two technical items that pay for the change which takes place in the Tax Code with this. What it means is that if a family wanted to donate $500 to a scholarship fund or an individual, they would get a $550 deduction for that. It is an extra incentive. It is just a small piece. I mean, people are going to come down and probably say, ``Well, this doesn't solve the problem.'' No, it does not solve the problem, but it is a step in the right correction. It is a tiny step. And I guess we are reaching out saying, at least can we take some tiny steps to help people who find themselves in an absolute lockbox of inadequate education with no way to escape? This is my latest attempt. I keep trying to bring ideas down here to try to give poor kids, minority kids, kids condemned to failing urban schools, a chance to get out and get an education. I try to use it as a basis to spur some competition so those who run the public schools will get the idea they need to improve their schools. We really care about these low-income children, which this bill does not address, but, again, that is not the intent of the bill. I think this strengthens the bill. Then we ought to look for ways in which we can encourage alternatives to education and encourage competition in the system that will force some change. I will never forget the testimony of the former 25-year superintendent of the Milwaukee public schools, an educated man, an African American, who said: Senator, I've tried everything. You can't name a reform proposal within the system that has worked. The unions block it. The public teachers don't want it. We've tried everything. I defy you to name an approach within the current public education system that forces change. Only one thing has forced change in the Milwaukee public schools, and that is the competition from private schools, the vouchers and the scholarships that have been available so that parents can vote with their feet and their children may have a choice. All of a sudden that has wakened up the Milwaukee public schools which has said, ``We've got to change or we're going to lose these kids.'' So instead of trying to perpetuate a bureaucracy that protects their employment, and their tenure, they have said, ``Let's make the changes that will give students an opportunity to learn, to read, to meet the math and the science skills, to advance in their education.'' Who do we care more about? Protecting the system or helping the children? That is the only thing. And so this is an attempt to, one, provide some lifeboats for some kids who are trapped--no, we cannot provide enough for everybody. That really isn't even my intent. My intent is to reform the public school system, because we are going to have, and we need to have, a public school system, a viable public school system, but we can do it by providing competition. In the meantime, we can at least help some kids. This amendment will do that. I hope I have the support of my colleagues in doing so. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. COATS. No. The Senator is correct. There seems, however, to be some considerable degree of confusion in the Congress about how that test is going to be structured and what the process is and an expression on the part of many Members that Congress ought to be involved in the process. So let's just temporarily put that on hold so that the Congress can engage in terms of a better understanding and defining how that ought to be put together. I have agreed that perhaps that is the best way to go, because unless we really have some better understanding and assessment of that, I am not exactly sure we are going to accomplish what we want. I think the basic principle that I tried to propose earlier, which the Senator supports, I still retain that. I am going to work toward that end.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, can I inquire of the time allotted to the Senator for this amendment? My understanding is it is 15 minutes. Is that correct?

Mr. COATS. In response to the Senator, I would not describe it as a stop; it is just a temporary pause while we better discuss the matter with our colleagues to make sure they understand exactly what we are trying to do. Apparently, I have been unsuccessful with that to this point. I am hoping to do better.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that is currently before us. Although Senator Kennedy may be using the opportunity to talk about the broader bill, it is the amendment that we will have to vote on unless that amendment is withdrawn. I want to briefly state reasons why I think Members should vote against that particular amendment. A primary reason is that it is unnecessary. The Labor Committee on which both the Senator from Massachusetts and I serve has, as part of the Higher Education Act, just unanimously voted out of the committee a loan forgiveness program for teachers, which I believe is far more effective than what is being offered by the Senator from Massachusetts. That teacher loan forgiveness program provides loan forgiveness to teachers who have loans that are eligible for the interest subsidy, ensuring that those who qualify would be most in need of help of repaying the loans. The second condition is that the teacher be employed for 3 years; third, that they teach in a public or private school whose school district has 30 percent or more of its students eligible for title I assistance; that they have an academic major in the subject area in which they teach if they are a high school teacher, and have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, and mathematics if they are elementary schoolteachers. The reason these conditions were imposed and, by the way, again, unanimously accepted by the Labor Committee, is because we wanted to target loan forgiveness to the most qualified teachers. We did not want a broad, all-encompassing loan forgiveness program, which I believe the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts covers about 90 percent of the teachers in this country--all those employed within the title I schools, which equals about 90 percent. The issue is not just more teachers; the issue is better qualified teachers. Statistics show, and studies show, that the real shortage is not the number of teachers--I could go into some detail on that, but I do not have time to do it--but the issue and the need is for qualified teachers. So we have structured this loan forgiveness program to support and emphasize teachers who meet these particular qualifications. The second reason I believe Members should not support this particular amendment is that the average debt for teachers is considerably more than what the Senator's amendment offers in terms of forgiveness. Ours allows provisions for up to $10,000 of loan forgiveness, which more closely meets the debt problems that teachers currently face, rather than the $8,000 which the Senator's amendment provides. Finally, the amendment is directed toward schools in general, the loan forgiveness program, whereas the Labor Committee amendment is basically directed toward the poorest schools, teachers that meet the qualifications as outlined in the Labor Committee's language, which is designed specifically for the purpose of trying to address the most critical need in this country, and that is getting qualified teachers who have the credentials to teach and are teaching in the Nation's poorest schools. I outlined those criteria earlier. But that was the basis for the Labor Committee's drafting of the language to address the most critical need, and that is where we ought to be putting our resources. It is not the schools in some of the more affluent suburbs that are having problems attracting teachers, particularly qualified teachers; it is the schools in the poorest districts, the schools in the low-income districts, the schools in the minority districts, that are having trouble attracting qualified teachers to teach their students. Those are the teachers that we want to encourage through this loan forgiveness program. So for those reasons, I urge our colleagues to oppose the amendment being offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, primarily because it is not needed, it has been addressed, it has been supported unanimously by the Labor Committee. It is directed toward the areas that need it the most; it is directed towards supporting qualified teachers. For those reasons, I urge a no vote on the amendment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Labor Committee, of which the Senator from Massachusetts is the ranking member--the Senator joined his colleagues on the Democrat side and joined all Republicans in passing out of the Labor Committee language unanimously. He did not offer his amendment there, so I just wonder what has changed. Obviously, what has changed is that the amendment is designed to gut the underlying Coverdell bill. Secondly, the language of the Senator's amendment is not targeted. It says title I eligibility. Title I covers 96 percent of all schools. That is not targeted. Targeted is designed to address a specific problem. A specific problem is the minority students, poor students, students in poor districts who are not getting the qualified teachers and the education they need. This Labor Committee product targets it towards those teachers. The Senator's language does not target; it says, where there is a shortage of qualified elementary and secondary school teachers under the title I programs. That is 96 percent. I do not call that being targeted. So for those reasons, I believe we should oppose the amendment.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I note that the ``Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998'' contains a provision which amends the ``Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.'' This provision deals with how the provision on elimination of geographic barriers to adoption is enforced. It is my understanding that this amendment does not affect the other provisions in the new law on reasonable efforts or the termination of parental rights. It is my understanding that the purpose of the new law was to clarify federal policy regarding the protection of children in foster care. The adoption law makes clear that the health and safety of children must always be of paramount concern in any decision affecting the removal of children from their homes or the reunification of children with their families. To receive foster care and adoption assistance funds, States are generally required to make reasonable efforts to maintain children in their own homes or to reunify children and families when possible. However, it is my understanding that under the new law, the federal government does not require States to make such efforts in cases where a court finds that a parent has killed or assaulted a child or subjected the child to extreme forms of abuse or neglect. At the same time, the new law does not prevent a State from making efforts to preserve or reunify a family in such cases, as long as the child's health and safety are the paramount considerations. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few moments, no more than 5 minutes, if that is acceptable, to speak about the pending amendment. Mr. President, just a couple of weeks ago I was privileged to chair a congressional symposium on the question of child care and parenting held by the Subcommittee on Children and Families. The purpose was to examine many of the issues surrounding the whole question of child care and the needs of America's working families. We tried to do what very few policymakers do these days. Instead of starting with an assumption that a certain program and place ought to just be expanded, we went back to the basics, back to fundamentals. We asked the questions: What do the experts think is best for children? What do families think is best for them? What do they think they need? Politics aside, special interests aside and, in the best of all worlds, if we were starting over, where would we start? What we learned from that symposium, convening experts from all across the political spectrum, different philosophies represented, but experts in the field, including mothers who have spent a great deal of time raising their families and studying these issues is that families want more time with their children, not less time. They want Government to allow them to keep more of their hard-earned dollars so that they have more choices in terms of how they spend those dollars, rather than deciding here that we are just simply going to spend more money on new programs or new bureaucracies. We learned that they want to rely less on child care, to have more flexible work hours, comptime and other profamily benefits that many Federal employees currently enjoy. We learned what children have is what Dr. Stanley Greenspan calls ``irreducible needs.'' He indicated the studies have shown there is a significant concern that our society ``has begun to advocate out-of-home care as the desired option rather than as a backup system for those who need it.'' According to experts like Jay Belsky of Penn State University, prolonged exposure to out-of-home care can have very serious results on long-term child development, because it impacts adversely on the way a child relates and bonds with his mother. It appears to have a negative impact on maternal sensitivity to the child, which is critical, as these experts have said, to child development. These are facts, Dr. Belsky said, that are overwhelming and should not be dismissed. He said they--this early interaction and bonding between mother and child--are as profound as the effects of child care on cognitive and social development. We have invested very heavily in the question of child care, but we ought to be wary of proposals which fail to address the needs and desires of a majority of American children and American families. So instead of choosing to promote a continuation of the current system, we ought to look at what these experts are telling us and at least try to find a way to balance what we do to provide incentives for parents who often, at considerable financial sacrifice, choose to stay home with their children, particularly in the early months and early years. We need to talk about positive family-friendly policies, extended job leaves, part-time work, flextime, comptime, job sharing, telecommunicating and other corporate policies which allow families to have more time with children, not less time with children. We ought to encourage ways in which we can increase parental involvement through tax fairness. Anybody who studies the Tax Code knows it is the families raising children that are most discriminated against in our Tax Code. We have often allowed more tax credits, as a former Representative used to say, for breeding racehorses than for raising children, because we penalize families that choose to stay home with their children by narrowly linking tax benefits to day care expenses. The dependent-care tax credit says that the more time you spend away from your children, the more time in out-of-home care, the greater the expense, the greater the credit. The Sessions amendment, which I am here to advocate support for and vote for, is a good first step, hopefully the beginning of an extensive congressional recognition of the importance of at-home care. We do need a strong, quality child care program for parents who work out of the home. We need to make sure that it is available to parents, but we also need to make sure that what is available to parents is maximum choices in terms of how they determine the best way to raise their children. They need to be treated equally, and the experts tell us that they need to be treated equally because ultimately this is the best for children. We recognize that not every working family can afford a stay-at-home parent, but we also recognize and need to understand that what the experts are telling us is that this is the preferred option, this is the option for which we ought to be providing incentives. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment before us today is a way that we as a body can recognize that fact and we can endorse, so that in our debates about how we expand the Tax Code, in our debates about how we address work policies, in our process of determining what is best for children, we will focus on what is best for children and look at the balance that is necessary to address those families that want a parent to stay at home and take care of their children, primarily because that is what is best for children. If we are talking about cognitive development, if we are talking about social development, we are talking about uniting parents and children at the earliest stages of their lives. There is no child care provider who can provide what a motivated mother and informed mother can provide for their child. There is no child care provider who can provide the love and nurturing necessary for the development of that child, and we need to have incentives built into our law that don't discriminate against but actually encourage and enhance that selection. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment of Senator Sessions that we will shortly be voting on and trust that it will receive an overwhelming bipartisan encouragement and affirmation. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for providing the time.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the report of the National Defense Panel (NDP) has been tremendously useful to the Congress as we consider the national security requirements for our military today, and into the 21st century. The termination of the National Defense Panel (NDP) is extended through fiscal year 1998 to provide additional details on their deliberations. The members of the National Defense Panel have provided insightful testimony on their assessment of the scope scale, and pace of military transformation needed to address the operational challenges of the 21st century. They are also providing insights on transforming the defense industrial base and infrastructure. The NDP will retain status, staff, and facilities as directed in section 924 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 1997. amendment no. 2115 (Purpose: To provide funds for emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair on Class II and Class III railroads) (On page 45 of the bill, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:) Federal Railroad Administration emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair For necessary expenses to repair and rebuild freight rail lines of regional and short line railroads or a State entity damaged by floods, $10,600,000, to be awarded subject to the discretion of the Secretary on a case-by-case basis: Provided, That not to exceed $5,250,000 shall be solely for damage incurred in the Northern Plains States in March and April 1997 and in California in January 1997 and in West Virginia in September 1996: Provided further, That not less than $5,350,000 shall be solely for damage incurred in Fall 1997 and Winter 1998 storms: Provided further, That funds provided under this head shall be available for rehabilitation of railroad rights-of-way, bridges, and other facilities which are part of the general railroad system of transportation, and primarily used by railroads to move freight traffic: Provided further, That railroad rights-of- way, bridges, and other facilities owned by class I railroads are not eligible for funding under this head unless the rights-of-way, bridges or other facilities are under contract lease to a class II or class III railroad under which the lessee is responsible for all maintenance costs of the line: Provided further, That railroad rights-of-way, bridges and other facilities owned by passenger railroads, or by tourist, scenic, or historic railroads are not eligible for funding under this head: Provided further, That these funds shall be available only to the extent an official budget request, for a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amounts as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That all funds made available under this head are to remain available until September 30, 1998: Provided further, that the Secretary of Transportation shall report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees not later than December 31, 1998, with recommendations on how future emergency railroad repair costs should be borne by the railroad industry and their underwriters.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are considering an amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky, which is designed to address one part of the increasingly contentious debate over affirmative action. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Adarand decision most probably makes the existing Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program unconstitutional; and, therefore, I think the Senator's amendment is appropriate. There is a growing sense, however, that as well-intentioned as affirmative action and set-aside programs are, whether they are constitutional or not, really in any way can be reconciled to the American commitment to equal justice under law. At the same time, I think it is important to point out that Americans do remain deeply troubled by the persistent poverty and lack of opportunity that quotas and affirmative action were originally meant to remedy. As unemployment approaches zero in much of the country, the inner cities are still overwhelmed by double-digit joblessness, social breakdown, and education failure. I want to be clear here this evening: Quotas and set-asides are not the answer to these problems. We have tried that. It has not worked. It does, I believe, violate constitutional principles of equal justice under law. Set-asides and quota programs have been largely a non sequitur to the social and economic questions faced by the urban poor. Quotas and set-asides do not strengthen civil society and do not strengthen our neighborhoods. It is the churches and charities and volunteer groups and community associations that bind neighborhoods together, along with strong families. That is what makes progress possible in these areas, not a statute written by the Congress that attempts to force a solution that cannot be forced. Quotas and set-asides do not foster the kind of spirit of entrepreneurship, that is necessary and needed in these communities, by encouraging the creation of the kinds of small businesses that provide employment and help anchor community life. And they do nothing at all for millions of children who are trapped primarily in urban public schools serving primarily low-income families--schools which, by any measure, are failing to provide adequate education for children who are trapped in this school system. When it comes to the real concerns of urban America, the national debate over set-asides and quotas is just off the mark, Not just off the mark; it is irrelevant. An unfortunate side effect of this debate, however, is that it gives the impression that those who support the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky have nothing else to say about the real concerns of poor Americans living in inner cities, all they want to do is eliminate the one advantage that individuals have. Now, in the warp and woof of this quota debate, these supporters-- Republicans, conservatives, and the others--are painted as largely unknowing and uncaring and uninterested in the real concerns of the poor. Now, if this charge was warranted, it would be a tragedy--a tragedy for our party, a tragedy for conservatives, a tragedy for Republicans. But such a charge is not warranted. Those who would support the amendment from the Senator from Kentucky, those who would acknowledge that the quota set-aside program has not addressed the real problems, are not those without alternative proposals. They are not those who don't share the concerns of the poor. We, as a group, have put considerable time and energy and thought into new approaches to helping restore our cities, renewing the hopes and dreams of those who live on some of America's meanest streets and meanest neighborhoods, addressing their concerns for the need for community empowerment, for strengthening families. Several years ago, I introduced a package of proposals under the title of ``Projects for American Renewal.'' It attempted, through a series of initiatives of Federal seeding and Federal support, demonstration programs, and grants, to accomplish a number of things, but primarily falling in three areas: Strengthen families, because families are so key to the strength and stability of communities, but recognizing that not all families are intact; and promoting the role of mentors, organizations and individuals that can provide support for children who don't have fathers at home to help them. It addressed the need for strengthening those community institutions--institutions of charities and nonprofits, churches, synagogues, and other institutions within the community that can reach out and address some of these most fundamental social programs in ways that government programs never have and never will. It sought to provide for community renewal through a series of empowerment measures and economic empowerment measures designed to gather capital, build businesses, and provide job opportunity and job growth for businesses within communities that needed the help the most. For the past 18 months, a group of us have been meeting under the title of ``Renewal Alliance,'' a group of roughly 30 Republican Members of the House and Senate seeking to craft a new program of outreach and empowerment to our Nation's urban areas and to our Nation's poor. We have rejected the failed model of the past, the top-down Federal programs that have brought devastation in inner-city communities. We have also, however, rejected a ``hands off'' approach that believes the best Federal urban policy is no policy at all. Instead, we have attempted, through the Renewal Alliance, to provide an opportunity agenda for urban America. We acknowledge that there is at least a startup role that the Federal Government can play, primarily through the Tax Code changes and through some seed money, but we also want to make sure that the role of the Government is that of a supporter and an encourager and a partner to local leaders and institutions who know firsthand what America's urban problems are and are already well on their way to finding solutions. It is clear to us that from the range and complexity of problems plaguing our inner cities, that capital development--social, human, and economic capital--is the key to the long-term renewal of urban communities. Our plan addresses this problem at three levels. First, through a charity tax credit and an expanded charitable choice program, we shift authority and resources away from government and toward those private charitable, religious, and voluntary organizations that undergird the life of local communities. We support private economic development through targeted tax incentives and regulatory relief. And we address the dramatic educational defects of urban schools by providing publicly funded scholarships for poor children to attend schools of their choice. I will take a few minutes--with the indulgence of the proponent of this amendment, my good friend, the Senator from Kentucky--to in more detail describe the Renewal Alliance agenda and its vision for urban America. First let me talk about community empowerment. Community activist Bob Woodson said there is no social program in America today that is not being solved somewhere by someone. The most intractable problems we face--drug addiction, teen pregnancy, homelessness, youth violence--are being conquered by community leaders most of us have never heard of. Pastor Freddie Garcia of San Antonio has a drug treatment program that has an 80 percent success rate, compared to the single-digit performance of government programs. An independent study of Big Brothers-Big Sisters found among at-risk youth, adult mentoring cut first-time drug use by 46 percent, school absenteeism by 52 percent, and violent behavior by a third. These are just two of hundreds of examples of programs and individuals involved in leading those programs that are making a difference in dealing with these difficult social problems that plague different communities, neighborhoods, and families in America. We propose a package of reforms that will strengthen these institutions, these charities, these volunteer groups, that bind communities together and actually heal individual lives. We want to continue the work of the 1996 welfare reform by encouraging States to transfer more authority and resources to the private nonprofit groups and religious groups through State-based charity tax credits. Our bill also expands and strengthens the charitable provisions contained in the 1996 welfare bill to permit faith-based institutions to compete for all types of Federal human services contracts. The Community Empowerment Initiative also builds on last year's Volunteer Protection Act by limiting the liability of businesses that provide equipment or facilities for use by charitable organizations. The second component of our Renewal Alliance program is economic empowerment. One of the great underreported stories of America's booming economy is the fact that tight labor markets are increasingly forcing businesses to look to inner cities for labor. In Wisconsin, Allen-Edmonds Shoes last year moved a major facility from Port Washington to inner-city Milwaukee to take advantage of the untapped labor pool there. The city of Indianapolis has engaged in an aggressive program to bring businesses into poor neighborhoods by reducing regulations and promoting the relative lack of economic competition in inner-city communities. Our legislation wants to build on these trends. We target the 100 poorest communities in our Nation with tax and regulatory relief designed to spur economic growth on a long-term basis. Our plan reduces to zero the capital gains tax for investments in troubled areas, increases the expensive plants and equipment purchases by small businesses in the zones, and allows businesses in these zones to receive a 20 percent wage credit for hiring qualified low-income workers. To qualify for these benefits, States and localities must agree to reduce local tax rates and fees within the renewal community and to waive local and State occupational licensing regulations. The proposal would also create family development accounts that encourage low-income families to save a portion of their income or of their EITC refunds, to be matched by private contributions which would be available for the purchase of a home, education expenses, or creation of a small business. The third part of our program is educational choice for low-income families. The recent survey on urban education by Education Week reemphasized the alarming state of our urban schools. Nationwide, just 43 percent of students attending urban schools meet the most minimal standards for reading comprehension. In schools in high poverty areas, only 23 percent meet the basic standard. This pattern held true in math and science, as well as reading. Urban parents whose children are trapped in schools in which failure is virtually guaranteed are increasingly demanding real change and real alternatives. Publicly and privately financed scholarship programs are now operating at over 30 cities. Early studies of these programs show substantial academic improvement among participating students and a sharp jump in parental satisfaction with the education their children are receiving are the results and consequences of these initiatives. Our legislation tackles the education problems faced by inner-city children from two different angles. First, we call for a large-scale test of publicly funded scholarships for poor children. We believe these scholarships would provide some immediate relief for families and inject badly needed competition in the public school system. The scholarships would also put real pressure on the public system for real reform as families begin shopping for schools that work. I am pleased to offer these initiatives here on the Senate floor with Senator Lieberman on a bipartisan basis in the past several years, and we want to continue to do that. The second part of the renewal education reform plan is targeted at relieving the regulatory burden faced by urban schools. Administrators routinely complain that although the Federal Government provides only a fraction of overall education funding, it imposes an overwhelming majority of the paperwork. Our bill would provide an education flex waiver for urban school districts that will permit them to devote more of their dollars to the classroom and less time filling out forms. This is the Renewal Alliance plan in brief: To restore urban America, community empowerment, economic renewal, educational choice, and reform. We do so not by putting the Federal Government in charge, but by bringing it alongside as a supporter of those individuals and those civic institutions, nonprofits, churches and charities, synagogues and parishes, that are already at work rebuilding lives and rebuilding neighborhoods. Mr. President, I will vote for the McConnell amendment. I believe the constitutional case for it is compelling. The Senator from Kentucky has crafted a measure that I believe addresses the issue of encouraging participation by the underprivileged of taking advantage of the highway funding that will result from passage of this bill. But I don't want this vote to be interpreted as the answer to the problems that affect the underprivileged, the answer to the problem that affects our communities. We need to do much more. We need a much more comprehensive effort. The Renewal Alliance has proposed such an effort. It is not written in stone. It is open to amendment. It is open to suggestion. It doesn't answer the whole problem, but it moves us in a substantial direction toward solving that problem. I'm going to discuss this in greater detail. We will be offering this legislative package. We will be exploring opportunities throughout this legislative session to debate and vote on all or some of this package of proposals. I am joined by a number of my colleagues here in the Senate. I hate to start naming names, but key among them are Senator Santorum and Senator Abraham. We are working with an expanded group of Senators who have real concerns and want to propose real solutions to some of the most difficult problems we face as a Nation. So with that, Mr. President, we will be saying more and doing more on this initiative in the future, but I wanted to take this opportunity to at least inform our colleagues that this vote is simply the opening foray into an area that I think the Senate needs to seriously address and give serious debate and initiatives toward solving. I look forward to the opportunity to continue this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. That is precisely what I was saying. I appreciate the Senator's experience and involvement with programs that are locally based and really make a difference in people's lives. What I was trying to say here is that we are faced with a situation where we have a statute on the books that appears to be unconstitutional. I think it goes against the grain of equal treatment under the law--something that is the foundation for what this country believes in. But I didn't want to misinterpret it as the attempt, this year, by the U.S. Senate or U.S. Congress in addressing problems that affect people that are called ``underprivileged'' or ``low-income'' or ``minorities'' or people who live in targeted urban areas. There are deeper problems. There are problems that have defied the Federal solution and have defied the legislative solution but have lent themselves to local solutions, often faith-based solutions, or nonprofit, charitable solutions that we can't write statutes for. Can we assist in the transition of moving the Government from a ``one-size-fits-all, let Washington solve the problem,'' to an aspect of greater involvement of these organizations in dealing with these problems? I think we can. What we are trying to do here is outline some steps that we believe we should take in order to accomplish that. I appreciate the continued support of the Senator from Alabama and his interest in this and his experience in this. I welcome his participation, as he has offered in the past and I know he will in the future, in terms of our Renewal Alliance efforts.