[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 93 (Friday, June 27, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6720-S6721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     TAX CUTS FOR COLLEGE EDUCATION

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say first of all that in the 
Senate in 1981 there were only 11 votes cast

[[Page S6721]]

against the proposal to cut taxes and increase defense spending to 
balance the budget--11 Senators. President Reagan's popularity was 
unbelievable, and there was a herd instinct that swept across this 
body. It was absolutely unstoppable. And in 1994 when we were going to 
balance the budget the deficit was up to $200 billion.
  I hate to say this. But, in my opinion, Mr. President, 18 people who 
voted ``no'' today will be more than justly and aptly vindicated when 
the year 2002 rolls around and we will not have a balanced budget or 
anything even close to it.
  I am chagrined and dismayed that today we are looking at a $67 
billion deficit on October 1, and next year, by our own admission and 
our own actions, the deficit will go to $94 billion --almost $30 
billion higher than it is in 1997. To me that is shameful and 
unforgivable.
  The American people have demanded a balanced budget as long as 
anybody can remember, and today we just forsook the opportunity to meet 
that nonnegotiable demand of the American people which they have laid 
on us for years.
  Mr. President, I forsook offering an amendment that I felt very 
strongly about this afternoon. I did it to accommodate our own majority 
leader who had a plane to catch, and there were a lot of other 
Senators. I had no disillusions about whether my amendment would pass 
or not. But I wanted to debate it for 1 minute, and I am perhaps better 
off taking 5 minutes now to say to whoever may be watching and the 
Members of this body, ask yourself this question. It goes right to the 
heart of my amendment.
  Do you think the Nation is better off providing a $135 billion tax 
cut, over 50 percent of which goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of the 
people in America? Do you think we are better off doing that, or do you 
think we would be better off providing a college education for the 5 
million youngsters whom the New York Times says over the next few years 
will be excluded from a college education because of skyrocketing 
costs?
  I speak from experience. I spent 3 years in the Marine Corps in World 
War II. I came home where there was a compassionate, caring, 
understanding Government which provided the GI bill to my brother and 
me. I wouldn't be standing on the floor of the Senate today as a U.S. 
Senator if it had not been for that help from the U.S. Government. Some 
people think the Government has no obligation to help anybody.
  What I am saying is if I had my first choice it would be to put the 
$135 billion in savings on the deficit, and balance the budget by the 
year 2000, and no later than 2001. But if we are not going to do that, 
if we are going to take the $115 billion we cut out of Medicare and 
spend it on something, I say spend it on college education for 
youngsters who cannot go to college otherwise.
  Mr. President, the greatness of this country has occurred when 
Members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives had strong 
convictions about what we need to do as a matter of social, 
educational, and cultural policy--the GI bill, for example. It takes a 
giant leap of faith to believe that we can do this--educate every 
youngster in the country with a college degree.
  We found that the average cost of an education in a State-supported 
university is $7,000 a year. So we simply increased the Pell grant to 
$7,000. The income criteria would remain as it is now. If you were 
wealthy or partially wealthy, you wouldn't get the full $7,000. But if 
you had an income of below a certain amount, you would get the $7,000. 
We left the two tax provisions that are in this bill that we just 
passed intact.
  Mr. President, I want you to look at this chart so that you can see 
what I am talking about and where we are headed.
  Here are the percentages of people in certain income categories. This 
is the highest level of income in the country --86 percent of those 
people go to college. In the next quintile down here, 60 percent, a 
little less than 60 percent, in 1983 and today, almost 68 percent of 
those kids go to college. And you get down here in the low-income, and 
look what happens. It started up--down and up. And now it is down 
again. If you look at the New York Times article of this past week, you 
will see that this figure is going to head down.
  Mr. President, I am not going to take up a lot of time to say 
something that everybody knows that we ought to be doing. But I do want 
to say this. Mr. President, the high school graduates in this country 
in the past 20 years have lost 18 percent more of their income. When 
you hear people say the income gap in this country is widening, there 
it is. High school students lost 18 percent in the last 20 years. 
Dropouts have lost 25 percent. And, if it continues at the present 
rate, by the year 2015 high school students will have lost 38 percent 
of their income because they didn't go to college.
  If you want to live in a civilized society, it is this simple. If you 
want to live in a civilized society, one that is relatively drug free 
and crime free, if you want to live in a society and in a technological 
age, we don't have any choice about it. This has to come.
  It is one of those things that we need to debate and debate now, and 
we need to do it. We need to make sure that no child in this country is 
denied a college education anymore than today we would deny somebody a 
high school education.
  So I forsook offering that amendment even though my staff and I had 
spent untold hours gathering statistics and information.
  I want to conclude as I opened a moment ago. Once again, I ask my 
brethren in the U.S. Senate and the people of America to ask yourself 
this one question: Do you think we are better off spending this $135 
billion on a tax cut which goes to me, upper-income people, and $12 a 
year to the stiff out there making $15,000 a year--$12 a year for him? 
The guy making $15,000 a year gets $12 a year out of this tax bill.
  The guy making over $200,000 a year gets $3,500 to $3,700. It is 
ironic; it does not mean anything to either one of them. To the man 
making $15,000, $12 does not mean anything in his life; to a man making 
$200,000, $3,000, or $3,500 does not mean much either. That is what we 
are doing instead of meeting our obligation. Ask yourself which is more 
important, that tax cut or educating the children of this country so we 
can live in a civilized society.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________