Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for Rebecca Papoff of my staff to be given the privilege of the floor for the duration of the Helms amendment on the Boy Scouts of America.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will briefly explain what we accomplished in this amendment. An agreement was reached to allow the Thomas J. Pappas School in Arizona to remain open and eligible for Federal funds, including these homeless education funds. A modified version of the amendment I offered to accomplish this will be incorporated into the bill shortly. For the information of my colleagues, the Pappas School is well known and very well regarded in the greater Phoenix area because it combines a high-quality education with essential social services required by the homeless students who attend the school. I have visited the school, and I know the work they are doing is very good. I also think it would be a grave disservice to the children who have already borne significant misfortune in their lives if the Federal Government deprived them of the opportunity to attend an institution that has served them so well. Last fall, president Bush visited the school and came away very impressed by the commitment of the staff and the hope those dedicated professionals have instilled in their students. The agreement I speak of was hammered out by Senator Feinstein, Senator Murray, Senator Boxer, Senator McCain, and myself, and revises the language in the underlying bill to allow the Pappas School and a number of other worthy schools to continue serving children in need. It ensures essential safeguards for homeless students, and their families are protected. Of course, a homeless child should be able to attend any school, whether it is the school he or she attended before becoming homeless or a school that addresses their distinct needs on a transitional basis with the objective of enabling them to return to a mainstream school. I am very pleased, despite fundamental philosophical differences, it was possible to reach this agreement. We have done something for homeless children, and for that I think we should be rightly proud. Secondly, Mr. President, I would like to offer a few words about an amendment that I will not be offering. I believe that these comments will go some distance toward explaining the reasons why I plan to vote against final passage of the bill before us. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about my amendment number 580. I will not be offering this amendment so that there will be no blue slip problems with the House. This amendment, like the Gregg amendment, that--unfortunately--was defeated earlier this week, would make real reforms that address the urgent need to improve elementary and secondary education in our country. The tax bill that we passed last month takes a very important first step along these same lines by allowing the Coverdell education IRAs to be used not only to facilitate savings for college education but for grades K through 12 as well. While the administration of our schools is and should remain a local responsibility, we have a compelling national interest in improving the quality of K through 12 education. And there are ways to discharge that responsibility without adding to the bureaucracy in Washington and without adding new mandates. As has been noted repeatedly during debate on this bill: It is a fact that America is currently not educating the workforce it needs for the economy of the 21st century. Raising overall achievement will enhance America's competitiveness. It is a fact that international tests reveal that American high school seniors rank 19th out of 21 industrialized nations in mathematics achievement and 16th out of 21 nations in science achievement. Ironically, this threat to our competitiveness is the result of our failure to apply the very principles undergirding our economy's success in the area of education. Our Nation has thrived because our leading industries and institutions have been challenged by constant pressure to improve and to innovate. The source of that pressure is vigorous competition among producers of a service or a good for the allegiance of their potential customers or consumers. So why not promote innovation by producers and choice for consumers in the field of education? The quasi-monopoly of public education today discourages this innovation. We must find a way to promote innovation and opportunity through greater choice of parents. Those are the concepts that have built this country through our great free market economic system, and it is the same concept that can improve our educational system. The other problem with our education system is that too many of our children are literally being left behind. Anyone who has followed this debate has heard the particulars, but they demand our repeated attention: Thirty-seven percent of American fourth graders' tests show that they are essentially unable to read. For Hispanic fourth graders, the proportion is 58 percent, and for African-American fourth graders, it is 63 percent. As President Bush has repeatedly noted, far too many of America's most disadvantaged youngsters pass through public schools without receiving an adequate education. It is intolerable that millions of children are trapped in unsafe and failing schools. Parents should have a right in the United States of America to get the best education possible for their children as they see it, and the amendment I offer today will help secure that right. My amendment would provide a $250 tax credit, $500 for joint filers, to partially offset the cost of donations to tuition scholarship organizations. These organizations--usually founded by business leaders--that provide tuition scholarships to enable needy youngsters to attend a school of their families' choosing. The idea first came to light about a decade ago when the first one was founded in Indianapolis. Now there are more than 80 such programs serving more than 50,000 students nationwide. For families who benefit, these programs are a godsend. A study that was just released by the Kennedy School of Government found that 68 percent of parents awarded scholarships are very satisfied with academics at their child's school compared with only 23 percent of parents not awarded scholarships. I should pause on that point to observe if this amendment became law and scholarships were to become more widely available, the schools these students left would have a much greater incentive to improve than is the case today. Because we anticipate that the tax credit would foster competition, we anticipate that its adoption will bring improvement of all schools, not just a few. But today, the problem is that demand for scholarships far outstrips supply, even though these low-income families must agree to contribute a significant portion of the total cost of tuition. For example, in 1997, 1,000 partial tuition scholarships were offered to needy families in the District of Columbia. Nearly 8,000 applications were received. Another example: In 1999, 1.25 million applied for 40,000 scholarships in a national lottery. Clearly, there is a huge unmet demand for this kind of assistance. In 1997, Arizona implemented an innovative plan to meet that demand in our State: A $500 tax credit to offset donations to organizations that provide tuition scholarships to elementary and secondary students. The results: Upwards of $40 million in donations to tuition scholarship organizations. The number of school tuition organizations operating in my State of Arizona is up from 2 to 33, and the organizations have a very wide range of emphasis and orientations. For example, they range from the Jewish Community Day School Scholarship Fund to the Fund for Native Scholarship Enrichment and Resources to the Foundation for Montessori Scholarships. Nearly 15,000 Arizona students, nearly all of them from disadvantaged backgrounds, have received this scholarship assistance. While some have charged that the law was unconstitutional-- particularly given the explicit prohibition on direct aid to parochial schools in Arizona's constitution--our State supreme court recognized that allowing taxpayers to use their own money to support education is a different matter and upheld the program. And consistent with previous holdings on the subject, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision. In other words, the Arizona tax credit should be embraced by those concerned that Federal dollars going to vouchers which students would then take to the school of their choice could possibly be unconstitutional. In Arizona, you do not have public dollars being given to students in the form of vouchers which are then taken to the school of their choice. Instead, what we provide is that if people want to contribute money to a duly qualifying scholarship fund, that scholarship fund can then give that scholarship to needy students and those students can take that scholarship to whatever school in which they want to be educated and the donors receive a tax credit. That is constitutional. It does not violate any notion of separation of church and state. And yet it permits people to help those who need the help the most to have the flexibility that only the most wealthy in our society have today: the ability to take their kids to the school of their choice. I have come to believe that it offers the best possible way to resolve this problem of choice and innovation. It meets the constitutional challenges; it involves the private sector; it involves personal donations; it does not give the Federal Government the task of funding and administering a large voucher program. Yet it gets the benefits to the students who need it the most, who are willing to contribute part of their own income to match that scholarship and pay the tuition at the school of their choice. Now when I brought this amendment up during the debate on the tax bill, I listened carefully to the arguments that were offered in opposition by my colleague, Senator Bingaman. In his remarks, my colleagues made two basic contentions. First he said: What we are saying [if we pass this amendment] is we will not appropriate money directly to those schools, but we will give each taxpayer a $250 credit if they will give that $250 to the private school. That, to men, seems to be a pretty direct way of providing Federal support for private and parochial schools. But as Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb noted, this argument equating tax credits with direct appropriations ``ultimately rests on the odious theory that government is entitled to all your money, and anything it doesn't grab is in fact expended.'' Senator Bingaman went on to argue that it would be imprudent to enact a proposal this ``costly'' at a time ``when we are unable to make [a comparable] commitment to the public schools.'' But the recent history of the bill before us today rebuts the premise of that argument. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated this credit could cost the Federal Treasury $43.4 billion over a 10-year period. Meanwhile, the Budget Committee's staff report that, as of last week, the Senate has added $211 billion to this bill for a total seven-year price tag of $417 billion. And given the concern about public schools, it is also worth noting that this tax credit is neutral as to whether scholarships should be used at public or non-public schools. Scholarships could be used to offset tuition costs at a private school, or to pay the tuition costs families in most states must pay to enroll a child in a school across district boundaries. I hope that my colleagues will think about what a magnitude of difference that money would make in the lives of our children: $43 billion would finance 12.4 million $3,500 scholarships. Think of the opportunity provided to those 12.4 million students with a $3,500 scholarship to take them out of the condition of education they are in now, out of the failing school, out of the unsafe school, and to a school where they can achieve, where they can learn, where they can be competitive, where they can learn their full potential. I have said many times that if we can get education right, almost everything else in this country will follow. By ``we,'' I do not just mean the Federal Government. In fact, I mean primarily the parents and local school folks. First, it will help people realize their full potential. Second, it will make them more qualified to compete for the kinds of jobs that are going to exist in the future. Third, it will help our Nation compete. We are going to need to compete in a world environment. Fourth, it is going to make us more secure because we are going to have the kind of young students who can invent the things that are going to help us keep our technological edge when it comes to national security. Fifth, it is going to make us better citizens. I have been somewhat appalled at what some of our schools do not teach about the history of this great country of ours, about the foundation for the self-governance we have, about the need for people, especially young people, to participate in our democratic Republic. I fear that generations of Americans are growing up not being taught the fundamentals of our society, our Government, and our free-market system that we were taught, and I think fairly well. If we go a couple generations without teaching our children accurately and adequately in subjects from math and reading to history to government to economics and all the other subjects that students in this complex world have to master, then we are not going to progress as a nation and be the leading superpower and the leader of the world we are today, in economic terms or in terms of human rights, democratic principles, and other societal values. If we get education right, we can flourish in all of these areas, and if we stay 19th out of 21 countries on these tests, then Americans are not going to be as well educated and we will be overtaken by other nations. We have led the world in foreign aid and assistance. We have led the world in our insistence on human rights. In other words, America stands for what is good on this Earth, and for us to continue to be the leader of the world to promote these values requires an educated citizenry, a citizenry that will be educated and committed to these ideals, to these propositions. We cannot sustain that kind of education with the system we have today. The scholarship tuition credits I am proposing with this amendment will enable parents to allow their children to be educated in the very best schools for those students and to enable them to escape the kind of system we have today to one where each child can grow to their full potential. We must demand nothing less of our system. This scholarship tax credit is an idea whose time has come, and that is why I have pressed it repeatedly and will continue to do so. Amendments Nos. 571 as Modified, 527 as Modified, 457 as Modified, 582 as Modified, 432 as Modified, 585 as Modified, 586, 587 as Modified, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592 as modified, 593, 595, 512 as Modified, 435 as Modified, 386, 424, 516, 804, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 358

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, before turning to my tuition tax credit amendment, I am pleased to inform the people of Arizona that an agreement has been reached to allow the T.J. Pappas School to remain open and eligible for federal funds, including homeless education funds. As I understand it, a modified version of the amendment I have offered to secure this objective will be incorporated into the bill shortly. The Pappas School is well-known and well-regarded in the greater Phoenix area because it combines a high-quality education with essential social services required by the homeless students who attend. I have visited the school and I believe that the work that they are doing is good work. I also believe that it would be a grave disservice to children who have already borne significant misfortune if the Federal Government deprived them of the opportunity to attend an institution that serves them so well. Last fall, President Bush visited the school and came away impressed by the commitment of the staff and the hope that those dedicated professionals have instilled in their students. The agreement that was hammered out by my self, Senator Feinstein, Senator Murray, and Senator Boxer, revises the language in the underlying bill to allow Pappas and a number of other worthy schools to continue serving children in need. It also ensures that essential safeguards for homeless students and their families are protected. Of course, a homeless child should be able to attend any school he or she wishes--whether it be the school he or she attended before becoming homeless, or a school like Pappas that addresses their distinct needs on a transitional basis with the objective of enabling them to return to a mainstream school. I am very pleased that despite some fundamental philosophical differences, it was possible to reach this agreement. Mr. President, I want to make a brief statement on behalf of Senator McCain and myself and others who have worked out the language of an amendment which will permit some schools for homeless children to continue to operate. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from the Arizona Republic of June 14, 2001, relating to just one of the success stories of this school, the Thomas J. Pappas School.

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise in support of the Helms amendment. Since 1910, for the past 91 years, the Boy Scouts of America have been instilling in young boys the values of personal responsibility, community, and duty to God, respect for individual beliefs, and patriotism. Millions of boys have become better citizens because of the availability of Scout troops in their communities. I respect the message of the Boy Scouts and respect their commitment to instilling these ethical and moral values in young boys. Unfortunately, there are some who do not respect the Boy Scouts' message. Some school boards are taking action to prevent the Boy Scouts from distributing recruitment information and holding meetings and not, as has been suggested, because some more appropriate group needs the space but because of what the Scouts believe. That is why I have chosen to speak today to voice my concerns regarding the discrimination the Boy Scouts are facing and to support the Helms amendment that will allow the good work of the Scouts to continue in schools. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts' first amendment right of association to create their own criteria for Scout leaders, even if that means prohibiting homosexual leaders in order to uphold its focus on strong moral values. That was in Boy Scouts v. Dale. Since that critical Supreme Court decision, the Boy Scouts have experienced serious discrimination for exercising their constitutionally protected rights, and that is not right. Boy Scout troops across America are facing obstacles put in place by school boards. In a Wall Street Journal article from last July, it was noted that poor minority children will suffer the most as a result of this all-out attack on the Boy Scouts. It is vital to hold Scout meetings in local public schools, particularly in inner-city neighborhoods because often that is the only safe place for these kids to congregate. The Senator from Massachusetts said the amendment is a solution looking for a problem, but the Congressional Research Service has reported already nine specific school boards have taken action to restrict Boy Scout access to public school facilities. The Senator from North Carolina had just gotten started reciting a litany of examples where this has occurred and apparently has several more pages from which he can read. This is a problem, unfortunately, that requires a solution, and the point of his amendment is to stop the trend so we do not have any more examples and so the Boy Scouts do not have to continually litigate every time they want to enforce their constitutional rights. This Congress has taken action over and over where the Supreme Court has guaranteed rights to a group or an individual or a cause of one kind or another, and we have sought to embody in the law a remedy so that the entity or the group does not have to constantly go to court to battle for these constitutionally guaranteed rights. That is what is meaningful about the kind of action that is being proposed today. An example as recently as November 2000, the Broward County School Board voted to prevent the Boy Scouts altogether from using public schools to hold meetings and recruitment drives. They challenged this in the Federal court, and the Boy Scouts won the initial victory. In March 2001, the district court issued a preliminary injunction that will allow the Boy Scouts to continue their regular meetings and recruitment. Yes, it is true that some have argued there is a remedy for the Boy Scouts to enforce their constitutionally protected rights. Why wouldn't we want to assist them so they do not have to go through expensive court litigation every time another school board decides to take this kind of discriminatory action. This past Monday, the Supreme Court held that a public school violated the Christian organization's free speech rights by excluding the club from meeting after school. The Court found the school was discriminating against the club because of its religious nature, and the Court rejected this viewpoint discrimination. More and more the Court is acknowledging the fact it is appropriate for us to protect these kinds of rights. There are about 85,000 Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts in my own State of Arizona. They rely on every public elementary school in Arizona to open the cafeteria or another room in afterschool meetings and help Scouts distribute information. I have gone to these schools and participated in the awarding of Eagle Scout badges, for example. I suspect almost all of us have done that, and it makes us feel very good to be supporting these youngsters who really want to become very good citizens. Even in my State of Arizona, the Boy Scouts have been subjected to this kind of discriminatory practice by school boards. One district outside of Tucson will simply not sponsor Scouting anymore. It has nothing to do with the need of other school activities for the space that has been devoted to the Scouts. Another school district began charging fees for the Scouts to use its facilities, but the same district does not charge a fee for any other group. Why charge the Scouts? The district said the Boy Scouts do not meet the goals and objectives of the school district. In another district, school employees took it upon themselves to throw away recruitment fliers in order to prevent the Boy Scouts from getting its information out to the students. I think the need for this is clear. The Boy Scouts need our help to ensure equal access to our public schools. They should not be forced to continually go to court to protect their constitutionally guaranteed rights. If they are denied access for legitimate purposes, this amendment does not apply. It is only to enforce their right against discrimination. They are experiencing hostility and exclusion from some public schools. It has to stop. The Helms amendment ensures they are not going to have to go to court to protect their rights. They will continue to be able to meet and teach young boys strong moral values. I hope others will join in supporting this very important and needed amendment to this bill.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-- of course I will not object--I cosponsored it because I felt very strongly that it was something we should do. I hope that sometime we will prioritize Federal funds for our responsibility to Federal military and Federal Indian reservation installations. I hope at some point we can get along with it. But, obviously, I don't object to withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. KYL. I object.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I want to respond to my colleague from Illinois. I would like to characterize my position rather than having my friend from Illinois characterize my position. He complimented me on being candid to say that I thought the first responsibility for the Federal Government in school construction is for the military installations and Indian reservations. That is correct. That is why, in this amendment, we first apply school construction funds to the needs of the military installations and the Indian reservations because those are the schools that get no help from the States. States do not build schools on military installations of the Federal Government or on the Federal Indian reservations. Only the Federal Government has that responsibility. Only we spend the money for those facilities. Those facilities are in horrible condition, far worse as a general rule than the average school described by my friend from Illinois. What we are saying is since only the Federal Government takes care of these two areas, or should, that the money we have allocated for school construction should first be applied to them as a matter of priority. Do I have a bit of a parochial interest here? Yes, I do because we have a lot of military installations and Indian reservations in Arizona, and the conditions are deplorable on our Federal Indian reservations. Anybody in this Chamber would be embarrassed to go to these facilities, and I add to that the court facilities, the jail facilities, and a lot of other facilities. And who has the responsibility for them? The Federal Government. Again: these are the schools that do not get any help from the States. What are we saying as the Federal Government when we say that we are going to help the States and local governments build their schools before attending to our first obligation, our Indian reservations and military installations? I say that is backwards. We already have somebody who is supposed to have the responsibility to take care of our primary and secondary education within the States. It is only the Federal Government that can take care of the military and Indian reservations. That is why I say this amendment makes all the sense in the world. Let's prioritize the Federal dollars so we take care of our own responsibilities first and then the remainder of the funds can be distributed to the State school needs. That is the way I characterize this, rather than the way my colleague from Illinois did. It is a matter of priorities. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

Mr. KYL. And the time remaining on the Republican side?

Mr. KYL. That was the time remaining on the Democratic side; is that correct?

Mr. KYL. Madam President, first let me respond to the Senator from Massachusetts. I think he will find that this is not the Enzi amendment. That was several pages long. This is the first 21 lines of the first page of the Enzi amendment. What this amendment says is that the impact aid which has traditionally gone to the federally impacted areas is going to be given a priority. The primary areas we are talking about are Indian reservations and military installations. In my State of Arizona, we have more reservation Indians than any other State in the United States, and a lot of military installations. My own view is that States and local school districts have always had the responsibility for school construction. They are the ones primarily responsible for that. With respect to Federal involvement in primary and secondary education, our first obligation ought to be to the our first responsibilities--the Federal installations and the Indian reservations over which we have trust land responsibility. Both of them are sorely in need of these funds. Therefore, it makes sense to me that we should consider, as a distinct proposition, the first 21 lines of the Enzi amendment, which provide that the priority goes to these federally impacted areas--so that they get the money first, and what is left over can go to other school districts. To me, that seems very logical. It seems to be the appropriate role for the Federal Government. Why would we not take care of the Federal responsibilities first as a priority and then, to the extent there is money left over, add that to what the States and local school districts spend for their schools? Since 1967, impact aid construction has not been fully funded. The result is a huge backlog of projects. In Education Week, a school board member in the military impact district said that some districts conducted so much of their business in portable classrooms and aging buildings that they ``more closely resemble prison camps than schools.'' He went on to say, ``Our troops are in Bosnia and those are the kinds of schools their kids are in.'' I might note that the Military Impact Schools Association, which is obviously interested in this, estimated it would take $310 million to meet facility needs in their members' districts. I can tell you from my experience with the many Indian reservations in Arizona that you have a very similar situation with federally impacted schools in Indian Country. In fact, it is even more dire. According to a 1996 study by the National Indian Impacted Schools Association, a typical district of this type had more than $7 million in facilities needs. And facilities needs are even more pressing for America's 185 Indian schools, which educate 50,000 Indian students. According to testimony from the director of the Office of Indian Education, perhaps half of the schools within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs exceeded their useful lives of more than 50 years, and more than 20 percent are over 50 years old. No fewer than 96 schools need to be entirely replaced. I think it is important that we put the money first where the Federal Government has the first responsibility, which is in our military installations and Indian reservations. That is all this amendment does. There is nothing secret about it. That is all it does. That doesn't begin to use up the entire $1.5 billion that is available here. That is approximately the amount, as I understand it. Again, we are simply providing the priority to the military installations and the reservations. I commend the Senator from Nebraska as well as the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, for his emphasis on getting these needs met, and I certainly hope we can adopt this amendment which establishes the priority for Federal facilities.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, as a cosponsor of the amendment, perhaps I could have the remainder of the time.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut. I agree with him that it is time for this amendment to have a test. In fact, I think the vote on this amendment will tell the American people whether we are really serious about reforming education, which is what this legislation really ought to be all about. I also think it is about which special interests are most exercised. Until now, with only a few exceptions, the amendments to this bill approved by the Senate have increased spending and authorized new spending programs. These are the same measures that have produced generations of less-educated Americans. ``After spending $125 billion . . . over 25 years, we have virtually nothing to show for it.'' That is a quotation from Secretary Paige. It is what he said when he saw new data showing that 60 percent of our poor fourth graders are still essentially unable to read. During this debate, the Senate voted to shovel billions of dollars more of taxpayers' money into this failed effort. At last count, measuring spending just on this bill, from last year, $17 billion spent to approximately $38 billion, it is well over a 100-percent increase. I think this is the context in which we should consider the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. As pointed out by the Senator from Connecticut, this amendment simply establishes a demonstration program which would allow only 10 localities in 3 States the opportunity to extend school choice to low- income students in failing schools. The cost is $50 million a year. Given the colossal spending increases added to this bill over the last few weeks, it is ironic that some still argue that this amendment is denying needed resources to public schools. No, the opposition to this amendment can only illustrate the truth of George Will's observation that ``opposition to school choice is the most purely reactionary cause in contemporary politics.'' This is not even a liberal versus conservative issue. Many distinguished voices of American liberalism have broken with the reactionary special interests and embraced school choice. The list includes--but is not limited to--former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist William Raspberry former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, former Congressman Floyd Flake, and the editors of the Washington Post. Most of these thoughtful observers deviated from liberal orthodoxy because they realize that their doctrine was hurting poor children. President Bush has described literacy as ``the new civil right.'' And he is right. When we allow the most disadvantaged to be cheated out of a decent education, we render the promise of equal opportunity hollow. School choice keeps that promise, not just for the students who are able to exercise choice, but for all the students who attend schools in a community where choice is widely exercised. My home State of Arizona has been a leader in the effort to provide parents with additional choices in education. Under the leadership of recently departed Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan, we have instituted open enrollment, enacted the most liberal charter school law in the country, and restructured state education financing so that education funds follow the student to the institution of his or her choice. One of the most interesting results is that because families are now empowered to exercise all these new options, the traditional schools are working harder to improve their performance. In response to some new charter schools, one district changed the curricula and other programs and took out ads in the paper to tell parents about efforts to improve upon its already strong academic offerings. But the competition that the new charter schools created spurred them to do even better. Who benefited? The kids. And after all, isn't that what this is about? It shouldn't be surprising that improvements resulted when Arizona began encouraging innovation by educators and providing more choice for parents and students. Our Nation has thrived because our leading industries and institutions have been challenged by constant pressure to improve and innovate. The source of that pressure is vigorous competition among producers of a service or good for the allegiance of their potential consumers. The alternative is monopoly, and a system that maintains a captive clientele by blocking all the exits, a system within which attempts to provide such an exit--even one so modest as that contained in this amendment--are considered a deadly threat. We all know that any politician who crosses these reform foes can expect to pay a price. We all recall how our former colleague Bill Bradley was pilloried in the Democrat primaries for the heresy of supporting proposals just like this one. Senator Bradley tried to reason with his critics: Advocates of school choice say that . . . it will create competition that will make the public schools better, he noted, before concluding: You don't know that unless you have a test. The die-hard choice opponents don't want to know. Or perhaps they already do know. Recently, along with a number of my colleagues, I had the opportunity to hear from Howard Fuller, who served as superintendent of schools in Milwaukee and helped implement that city's path-breaking choice program. Dr. Fuller is a passionate and eloquent advocate for school choice. He gets to the heart of the opposition when he said: Parents must be empowered to have their aspirations for their children's education taken seriously by educators. A critical step in that direction is when we give them the capacity to exercise choice. I believe that [currently] our educational systems are . . . organized to protect the interests of those of us who work in these systems, not the needs and interests of the families we are supposed to serve. . . . When we vote on this amendment, the Senate will decide: Is our purpose to protect the special interests or is it to protect the interests of American students and their families? The choice is clear.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I appreciate the comments of the Senator. I look forward to working with him in a bipartisan fashion. I had heard the comments that the Republican leadership was going to take the energy bill up right after the education bill. My understanding is the Democratic leadership intends to take that up at a subsequent date. I think the Patients' Bill of Rights may be the next item taken up. That was the nature of my concern. As soon as possible, I hope it will be considered. I certainly look forward to working with the Senator from Nevada to find solutions to the problem. I thank the Senator. The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a quick comment?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is likely that soon the Senate will undergo a historic change in leadership. I am concerned about some news reports that the new Democratic leadership may not proceed forthwith to the consideration of an energy bill that the administration very much would like to see us consider. It is my understanding that, at least from news reports, there are some other priorities the new Democratic leadership will probably pursue. I just want to make it as clear as I can I think we should, as soon as possible, consider the legislative recommendations of President Bush and Vice President Cheney to deal with this most serious crisis. In fact, I think we saw this past weekend that the President thought it was important enough to travel to California to visit with Governor Davis, who has certainly expressed his views on the importance of the issues facing his State. And his is not the only State that has faced this energy crisis. There are a couple of statistics worth noting in this regard. Our energy demands are growing very rapidly while our production side is relatively stagnant. Oil consumption, for example, will grow by over 6 million barrels per day over the next 20 years, but oil production is expected to decline by 1.5 million barrels per day. Natural gas consumption will grow by over 50 percent over the next 20 years, but production will only grow by 14 percent. And electricity demand, which is especially of concern on the west coast and in my region of the country, will rise by 45 percent over the next 20 years. This will require 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants. So we have a big job ahead of us. I think we need to get on with some of the solutions as soon as possible. There has been some criticism that the President's recommendations are primarily longer term solutions. We will make them even longer term the longer we take to get to them. We will have shorter range solutions the quicker we get to the legislation that is required. I note that many of the recommendations from the commission the Vice President headed are recommendations that can be effectuated by the administration itself. Twelve can be implemented by Executive action; seventy-three are directives to Federal agencies. For example, the President has already directed Federal entities to reduce consumption by 10 percent, including the military. But there are some 20 recommendations for action by the Congress. These are among the things on which we need to get moving: The plan of the President to modernize and increase conservation, to diversify energy supply, and modify and expand the infrastructure through which those sources of energy are delivered to the American people, and to strengthen our energy security. This is the core of the set of recommendations. Without getting into all of the details, because I only have 5 minutes this morning, let me just say that one of the things that has been proposed is price caps. Price caps, as the President and Vice President have said, are exactly the wrong thing to do. Price caps would keep demand increasing and do nothing to enhance supply. In fact, it would tend to keep supply down because there is nothing for the investor to look forward to if there is a price cap on how much can be charged for the energy that is being produced. And, of course, there is no incentive to conserve if there is a price cap. If prices, on the other hand, are allowed to rise, as they do with gasoline, then people will be more careful about how much they use. We have seen news reports of people cutting back a little bit on the driving they intend to do this summer. Why? Because there are no price caps on the price of gasoline. People understand that to save money they are going to have to drive less; they are going to have to conserve. So I do not understand why, on the one hand, we have this drumbeat of comment that we have to conserve our way out of this problem--certainly conservation is an element but not the sole element--and yet, on the other hand, to put in place price caps, which would have exactly the opposite incentive--for people not to conserve but to go ahead and continue to use those electricity supplies. So I think price caps are not the answer. There are other elements of the bill that are. Finally, a point about some of the criticism of the Vice President and the President. I hope our colleagues will not join in this kind of demagogy that we have seen from outside the Senate. It is true that both the President and the Vice President have been in the business of producing petroleum products. I do not know why we would be critical of people who know something about the solution coming up with some good ideas. They are, after all, our top two elected leaders. They know something about the problem and its solutions, and neither of them can any longer directly benefit. So I think this criticism that they know something about the problem and therefore they should not be involved in the solution is very misdirected. I hope we can focus on solutions rather than ad hominem attacks. After all, there are two kinds of people in the United States: There are producers and consumers. Almost all of us are consumers, and we should be grateful for those who are the producers because they are the ones who make it possible for us to enjoy our great standard of living. They would not be producing if we did not provide the demand for that production. It is the consumers of the country who, in effect, are creating the opportunity for these people to do the demanding. Some of these critics remind me of kids who think that food comes from the refrigerator or the grocery store. Obviously, they are unaware of all the work the farmers and the people in between the farmers and the grocery store put in to make those food supplies available. We should not be talking in terms of criticizing the people who are coming up with the solutions simply because they happen to know something about it. I suggest that the new leadership of the Senate, as soon as they possibly can, bring the legislation forward in whatever form because we will all have an opportunity to propose amendments if we don't like its original form. This is very near a crisis; if it is not a crisis. We have to get on with the solutions. The administration has led the way by its executive directives. It has done all it can do. Now it is time for the Congress to respond. I urge the new leadership of the Senate to join with the administration in a bipartisan effort to begin to consider the solution to our energy problem. The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, our Senate colleagues are anxiously awaiting the report from the conference committee that is attempting to iron out the differences between the House-passed tax bill and the Senate-passed tax bill. I thought perhaps some who are waiting for this outcome would be interested in some thoughts with respect to what has gone on so far and what we might expect from the conference. In particular, I will address remarks to the part of the bill in which I was most involved. I begin by noting that the conferees, who are the people on the Ways and Means and Finance Committees, are busy at work trying to iron out the differences between the two bodies. Part of the success of getting the bill to the conference in the first place is attributable to the bipartisan leadership of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Max Baucus, the ranking Democrat from Montana. They worked very hard to develop a bill which wasn't all conservative or all liberal, all Republican or Democrat, but which represented views of a substantial part of the membership of the committee on both sides of the aisle. It represents most of what President Bush wanted, but not all, and not quite to the same degree, because by definition it is a compromise. Because of that compromise, and it had support from both sides of the aisle, over the course of the last week there were 45 different attempts to amend the bill. Every one of them failed. In other words, the Members of this body voted time after time after time to support the work of the Senate Finance Committee, understanding it represents a good compromise. Of course, there has to be another compromise, and that is with the House of Representatives. The bill the House passed represents a little more closely the views of President Bush. Naturally, those on the Republican side of the aisle are hoping there will be a compromise between the House and Senate versions that truly does reflect a meeting of the minds. The Senate-passed bill was only a total of 10 years of $1.35 trillion because that was the compromise amount. That meant we could not grant relief quite as robust as the House had done earlier. All of the Republicans and 12 Democrats voted in favor of that bill. From my perspective, it was not perfect; it certainly was a very good step toward tax relief, providing, most importantly, marginal tax relief from income tax rates and significant relief from the estate tax and eventual repeal, after 10 years, of the estate tax. I am hopeful this conference committee will be able to reach a conclusion and enable the Senate to pass this bill sometime tonight or tomorrow, whatever might be the time. I will discuss primarily the provisions relating to the phaseout and eventual elimination of the death tax in the year 2011. The death tax provisions being negotiated now, it is my understanding, are not as much as either in the House-passed bill or the Senate-passed bill. The reason is because there has been an effort to accommodate more Members with what they wanted to include in the bill. Everything else has to give. The net result is, according to my understanding, that the range they are talking about now, out of a total of $1.35 trillion, is about $135 billion, or 10 percent. For practical purposes, about 10 percent of the tax relief under the bill goes to rate reduction of the death tax and an increase in the exemption and eventual repeal in the 10th year. President Bush, by contrast, allocated $260 billion for death tax relief. We are trying to get by to do more with less. Probably the most important thing is there has been an understanding both in the House and in the Senate reflecting the will of the American people that there is something terribly unfair about a provision of the Tax Code that literally taxes people because they die; not because they sold an asset; not because they saved or invested or had some other kind of economic transaction that they fully knew the tax consequences of but, rather, they are taxed because they die. We have come to conclude, representing the view of the majority of Americans, there is something very unfair about taxing people after they die. Actually, you are not even taxing the person who died. You are taxing that person's heirs--the spouse, the children--at the very worst time of their life following this tragic event. It is not fair. It doesn't represent good tax policy. There is a good way to substitute the capital gains tax for the estate tax, so that the assets end up being taxed but being taxed the same as any other assets, based upon an economic decision, if and when those assets are sold, and then taxed at the capital gains rates. But a tax is not imposed at the time of death. Fundamentally, death should not be a taxable event and that is a core principle that will come out of this tax bill. It is a core principle embodied in the repeal of the estate tax, sometimes called the death tax. To me, the most interesting thing to come out of this debate is the realization that the American people have a fundamental sense of fairness. When you ask them whether it is fair to tax at the rate of about 25 percent, for example, they say no; we ought to get taxes down. When you ask them if it is fair that death should be a taxable event, they say no, even if they do not think they are ever going to benefit personally from repeal of the estate tax. Fairness is what this effort to repeal the death tax is all about. What I mostly wanted to do today is to report the results of a national poll of just this week. So we are not talking about something a long time ago--just this week, a very objective poll. So it has a very low margin of error. It is a poll by the respected McLaughlin & Associates of a thousand likely voters from around this country. Here is one of the questions they asked. They wanted to ask the question, in effect, in the worst way possible. They said: Do you believe it is fair or unfair for Congress to impose a 40-percent or greater tax on an estate worth $1 billion? You could say, Do you think the death tax is unfair? I guarantee at townhall meetings people say: No, the death tax is not fair. That is not really putting the question in the most objective way. But when you ask: Is it fair or unfair for Congress to impose a tax of, be specific, 40 percent or more on estates--you don't use the death tax terminology--on estates of $1 billion or more, that is the loading of the question. That is the part that biases it, $1 billion or more, should you tax them at more than 40 percent? Do you know what the answer is? By 60 percent the American people say: No, it is unfair. Only half that many said it was fair. How many of those people do you think would benefit from a repeal of that estate tax? Out of 1000, I don't know, maybe one but maybe not. There are not many people in this country leaving an estate of $1 billion. Yet all Americans realize it is fundamentally unfair to impose a tax of more than 40 percent. Of course, I might add the law currently is that it is about a 60- percent tax rate, but the question was not biased. I think what that shows is right this week the vast majority, by 2 to 1, of Americans believe that even a tax rate of 40 percent is unfair. The reason that is significant is in the Senate bill we were not able to reduce the tax rate on estates of even $5 million, let alone $1 billion, to that 40 percent level. As a matter of fact, I think we got it down to 45 percent, if I am not in error. Yes, we reduced the rate from 60 percent down to 45 percent. The House got it down into the 30s. I have forgotten whether it is 37 or 39 but something like that. We ought to be working to reduce the rate below 40 percent before the tax is finally eliminated in the 10th year. But we were not able to do that. I hope that is something the conference committee will work to do, to try to bring that rate down just as much as they possibly can. What is interesting about this survey that shows that American people are fundamentally fair minded is that the results were the same across economic and political classes. For example, just as many voters who earned under $20,000 as those earning over $100,000 said the practice was unfair; exactly 61 percent in both cases. It is consistent across the political spectrum, very similar. Among Republicans, 65 percent said it was unfair. Remember the baseline is 61 percent. Slightly more Republicans, 65 percent, said it was unfair. Slightly fewer Democrats, 54 percent, said it was unfair; and Independents, 62 percent, almost right on the button. The bottom line is, whether Republican or Democrat or independent, a substantial majority believe that even a 40-percent tax on $1 billion estate is unfair. The other interesting thing is this survey tracks all the other surveys I have seen over time. I will go back just 1 year because that is a nice frame. But the clear and resounding message is the estate tax is unfair and ought to be stricken from the code. The same McLaughlin & Associates conducted a poll earlier this year, in January. It found then that 89 percent of the people surveyed believed it was not fair for Government to tax a person's earnings while it is being earned and then tax it again after the person dies--which is exactly what the estate tax does. Mr. President, 79 percent approved the idea of abolishing the estate tax--79 percent. That is very consistent with other surveys as well. I went back a year ago because there is an interesting Gallup Poll that was done just a year ago--not quite a year ago. It found 60 percent of the people supported the repeal, even though about three- fourths of them believed they would never receive any direct benefit from that repeal. Again, it goes to the notion of fairness. People believe an unfair tax should be repealed even if it is not going to help them at all. The reality is it probably would help them in terms of its indirect benefits. I noted during the debate on the estate tax the economic benefits to repeal, in terms of new jobs created, the infusion of capital into the economy, the growth of the economy--all these things would be significantly benefited from a repeal of the estate tax. Of course, that benefits all Americans. As John F. Kennedy said, in a different context, with respect to tax relief, ``A rising tide lifts all boats.'' So if you can help the American economy, it helps everybody in the economy, even if you are at the lower end. So the reality is, repealing the estate tax does help all Americans. But it obviously helps some more than others. It especially helps those in two categories: First of all, those who pay the tax. That is not very many people. It is maybe in the hundreds of thousands--maybe a million, I don't know. But if you take members of families who are directly affected by this, clearly it is a number that is very much in the millions, if at all. Yet Americans fundamentally believe it is unfair to tax them. The other larger group that is affected by the tax is, of course, all the people, especially the small business people--family-owned farms and family-owned businesses--who have to spend their money to try to plan their estate in such a way as to minimize the estate tax liability. This is difficult and expensive. The Women-Owned Business Association--by the way, women-owned businesses represent more than half the small business in this country. They surveyed their members and found--just 2 years ago I believe it was--the average small business spent $60,000 to do this expensive estate planning. I note there was an op-ed in the Washington Post this morning by a very wealthy American who testified before the Finance Committee. He said it was really a shame we were going to do away with the estate tax. Of course, his point was he didn't think the American people really believed that way; yet I think the survey results show that they are. But people like this individual have the money to do the estate planning. They do not suffer from the tax. It is the small businesses and family-owned businesses and farms that end up having to pay a lot of money to buy insurance, to pay lawyers and accountants and estate planners to try to avoid the tax. The real cost of the tax is at least as much, and probably more, in the wasted money spent to avoid paying the tax than it is the revenue to the Federal Government in the first place. Mr. President, 2 years ago when the tax collected about $20 billion, there is a study that showed that almost exactly the same amount of money, by coincidence, about $23 billion additional, was spent by people to avoid paying the estate tax or minimize their liability. So it is a very inefficient tax, as economists Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell said in writing a 1992 study. They said death taxes ``have failed to achieve their intended purpose. They raise little revenue. They impose large excess burdens. They are unfair.'' I think the thing to note at this point in time in this Chamber, at about 2:20 on Friday afternoon, is that the conference committee is working away trying hard to bridge the gap between the House and Senate versions of the estate tax. I think all of us are hopeful that they will conclude their work so we can vote on the bill and provide tax relief to Americans. This is a bill which provides relief all the way from the refundable tax credits, literally providing money to people who do not pay taxes, all the way up to those few people who, as I said, would receive relief from the estate tax. But most importantly, it would provide marginal rate relief for all Americans. We have an opportunity now. I hope that we can drive the rates of the estate tax down prior to the repeal but, in any event, we will have struck a blow for fairness in this country by reducing marginal rates; reducing, if not eliminating, the marriage penalty, which is very unfair; and, finally, getting rid of a tax that a majority of Americans believe is very unfair, a tax that literally requires people to pay money to the Government because they died, the estate tax. Madam President, we have a wonderful opportunity. I hope the conferees come back soon and we will have a chance to vote on this legislation. Again, I commend the members of the conference and, in particular, the bipartisan leadership in the Senate, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, for the fine work they have done to get it this far. I just hope now we can conclude the work and send it down to the President for his signature and the benefit of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KYL. Thank you. Mr. President, this amendment uses repeal of the death tax to pay down the debt further. We already defeated amendments which would help with HOPE scholarships and Head Start and a variety of other things. This now would use it to pay down the debt. Obviously, it is something we have considered and rejected in the past. I urge my colleagues to reject it again. This would make, I believe, something like the 46th amendment. There does not appear to be anything new under the Sun here, and, as a result, I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating the amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to take the minute now in opposition to the amendment. We have had an opportunity to review it.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it appears that we have not been given this amendment. I know that my colleagues on the other side have made it clear that it was their intent that we receive all copies of all amendments prior to the time of their presentation. As of right now, in any event, it does not appear we have this amendment. I would ask for my colleagues' indulgence for a moment. If the Senator from North Dakota wishes to offer the amendment, then we are going to have to have an opportunity to review it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is a bit confusing when these amendments are taken out of order. At the moment, if I could ask for my colleagues' indulgence, we do not have a copy of this amendment. We may have to get it from the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is now 8:45. I believe this will be the 46th amendment we will have considered. This amendment also deals with the subject that about half of the recent amendments have dealt with-- education--which I have already discussed we have done a lot about in the bill already. There is a point at which I think our colleagues are going to have to conclude that the continued offering of these amendments over and over and over again is for the purpose of dragging this out and preventing the Senate from passing an important bill for tax relief for the American people. It also depends upon whether you are for tax relief or not. For those who continue to offer these amendments, it is apparent that they are not for the bill, they are not going to support the bill, they continue to try to drag this out so we won't complete this bill before the Memorial Day recess. The amendment is not germane to the provisions of the reconciliation measure, and therefore I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.