[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9047-H9056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2646, EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR 
                       PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 274

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2646) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow taxfree expenditures 
     from education individual

[[Page H9048]]

     retirement accounts for elementary and secondary school 
     expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of 
     contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes. The 
     bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, and any further amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate on the bill, which shall be equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment 
     specified in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules, 
     if offered by Representative Rangel or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     or demand for division of the question, shall be considered 
     as read, and shall be separately debatable for sixty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met yesterday and granted a 
modified closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 2646, the 
Educational Savings Accounts for Public and Private Schools Act. The 
rule considers the bill as read for endorsement.
  The rule further considers the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means as modified 
by the amendment printed in part one of the Committee on Rules report, 
which fixes a 10-year pay-go problem in the Senate. The amendment 
causes provisions in this bill to expire after 5 years. This is in 
keeping with our efforts to stay within the bounds of our historic 
budget agreement. The Committee on the Budget has indicated they are in 
agreement with this amendment.
  The rule also provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  The rule further provides for consideration of an amendment, if 
offered, by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] or his designee. 
All points of order are waived against his amendment.
  The bill shall be considered as read for amendment and shall be 
debatable for 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent 
and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. What we will debate is a matter of 
philosophy. There are really only two sides. The rule allows debate 
between those who support giving families more power over the education 
of their children, and those who support allowing bureaucrats to 
continue to have that power.
  The crisis in American education today especially affects children in 
elementary and secondary education. Our education system is failing 
them and leaving too many children unprepared for the future.
  Consider the following: Forty percent of all 10-year-olds cannot meet 
basic literacy standards; eighth graders recently placed 28th in the 
world in math and science skills; over 60 percent of 17-year-olds 
cannot read as well as they should; 2,000 acts of violence take place 
in schools every day; children in Los Angeles are taught to drill to 
protect themselves at the sound of gunfire; and almost one-third of 
freshmen entering college require some sort of remedial instruction.

                              {time}  1115

  We have a moral obligation to fix these problems. Without bold new 
ideas and innovative solutions, we never will.
  Recently there has been a great deal of talk about helping more 
people afford a higher education. Helping financially is great, but 
what about the students who never access those programs because their 
school failed to prepare them for college? I believe we must enact 
reforms like H.R. 2646 so that we can truly expand higher educational 
opportunities for children. We increase those opportunities by 
providing a good, solid education at the elementary and secondary 
level. That way, more children will be prepared to go on to college. 
Blocking those reforms keeps too many children locked into a system 
that never gives them a chance to realize their true potential.
  The real expansion of opportunity will come from preparing more 
children for higher education. We must reach them while they are in 
elementary and secondary schools, because if we do not educate them 
coming in, they will not have that opportunity to go to college, no 
matter what it costs. It is not a question of how much money is being 
spent on education. Some of the worst schools in the country are in 
districts where the per student spending is very high. It is a question 
of who controls the spending: families or bureaucrats. I, for one, side 
with the families.
  Research has shown that engaging parents in their children's 
education improves the academic performance of their children. It also 
gives parents a stake in the success of their local school. The bill we 
will debate today is one of the most innovative initiatives yet 
advanced to improve the quality of education for children in America. 
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, an estimated 14.3 million 
families will benefit from these savings accounts by the year 2000, and 
about 10.8 million of those have children who attend public schools.
  H.R. 2646 allows families and anyone else concerned with a child's 
education, like grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, concerned 
mentors, or neighbors, to invest in an education savings account for 
that child.
  Mr. Speaker, the money in these savings accounts could be withdrawn 
tax-free to pay for the child's education-related expenses, and those 
expenses may include a personal computer, tutoring, transportation to 
school, books, a school uniform, or private school tuition. Parents of 
home-schooled children and children with special needs may also use 
these funds for educational-related expenses. Any money not used by the 
time the child graduates from high school could be used for college-
related expenses.
  Similar ideas have been implemented in Minnesota and Arizona. For 
almost 15 years, Minnesota taxpayers have been able to deduct from 
their State income taxes expenses incurred for tuition fees, textbooks, 
and transportation for children enrolled in public or private schools. 
In fact, earlier this year the Minnesota Legislature expanded the tax 
credit due to enormous public support. According to the Governor's 
office, about 900,000 children will benefit from their expanded plan.
  On April 3, the Arizona Legislature passed an innovative tuition tax 
credit which provides a credit for contributions to public school, 
extracurricular programs, and for contributions to tax-exempt 
organizations that award scholarships to children to attend the private 
schools of their choosing.
  H.R. 2646 is a good bill. In a recent poll, 66 percent of those who 
were polled supported the creation of savings accounts like the ones in 
this bill. This bill will not solve all the problems in our public 
education system, but it can be part of the answer. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and H.R. 2646. Do it for the children, 
for their future. We have the power to help.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is intent upon ignoring the 
needs of our public school system in the United States. Over the years, 
hundreds of millions of Americans have been educated in the public 
schools of this country, thus assuring parents that every child is 
entitled to and will receive an education from kindergarten through the 
12th grade.
  Yet, instead of seeking to improve and strengthen public educational 
opportunities, my Republican colleagues want to drain precious 
resources from the Treasury and give them, through the back door, to 
upper middle-class parents who send their children to private schools.

[[Page H9049]]

  Mr. Speaker, a mere 3 months after the enactment of the balanced 
budget agreement and the tax bill, the Republican majority wants to 
create another new tax break for upper-income middle-class families. 
These are the families, Mr. Speaker, who are already financially able 
to send their children to private schools, and they do not really need 
the Federal Government to help them.
  The Republican majority has billed these new tax breaks as a means to 
give parents choice in where they send their children to school, but 
let us face the facts. This bill will not help families who cannot 
already afford private or parochial schools. This bill will not help 
those families who are struggling to make ends meet. Most young 
families and families with children have relatively little money left 
over at the end of the month to contribute to an account which would 
help them with payments for a private school.
  What this bill will do, Mr. Speaker, is provide benefits to higher 
income families, while providing little or nothing to families with 
incomes of less than $55,000 a year. The average tax break for a family 
making between $33,000 and $55,000 a year under this bill is $7. 
Seventy percent of the benefits of this bill will go to families making 
between $93,000 and $160,000 a year, upper middle-class families who 
send their kids to private school. A family making up to $33,000 a year 
will only see a tax benefit of $2, and that is if they make the maximum 
contribution of $2,500 to an IRA.
  Mr. Speaker, this new savings program will not really do much to help 
families make a choice about where they send their kids to school, and 
it most certainly will not do anything to address the pressing needs of 
the public schools in this country. While I submit that H.R. 2646 is 
not really about nor does it afford school choice, this rule gives 
Members the opportunity to make a choice. The Committee on Rules has 
given the House an opportunity to choose between making a positive 
choice for the improvement of our public schools, or the Republican 
bill, which promises but does not give tax breaks to middle-income and 
lower-income families.
  The committee bill benefits families who can afford to pay for 
tuition to a private or parochial school, and at the same time make an 
annual $2,500 contribution to an educational account. That is something 
many families are not able to afford. The Democratic alternative, which 
will be offered by the Committee on Ways and Means' ranking member, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], seeks to improve curriculum, to 
rehabilitate or repair school buildings, to buy equipment, or to train 
teachers by providing interest-free capital for public schools that 
enter into partnerships with the private sector.
  The Rangel substitute seeks to expand the educational zone provisions 
passed in the Tax Relief Act, and is, unlike the committee bill, 
targeted to the public schools and their students, who have the 
greatest need.

  Mr. Speaker, no matter how often or how loudly the Republican 
majority cries that what they want to do is to help parents make 
choices for their children, the real truth is that for most Americans, 
public school is their first and only choice.
  Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of the kids in this country go to public 
schools, and we, the elected Representatives of the mothers and fathers 
of those children, are duty-bound to make sure that whatever we do, we 
do not destroy the public education system in this country. We are 
duty-bound, Mr. Speaker, to help those local school districts ensure 
that every school is a first-class institution providing our kids with 
a safe and drug-free environment in which they can learn what they need 
to in order to be productive citizens of the 21st century. We are duty-
bound, Mr. President, to make sure that every kid gets a good 
education.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, but only because the Rangel 
substitute has been made in order. I urge Members to reject the 
Republican bill, and to give kids a real choice and a real chance at 
quality education by adopting the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, and far be it from me to even 
presume to correct the distinguished gentleman from Texas, but I think 
he suggested that this might cost $2 or $3 billion.
  Mr. FROST. No, I did not use that figure.
  Mr. STARK. There is approximately a $2.5 billion cost, but the true 
cost, if the gentleman will yield, is actually over $5 billion. There 
is a gimmick in here, strictly for budget purposes. The bill is sunset 
at the end of 5 years. If the Members can name a tax loophole that has 
ever been allowed to sunset, then I would say he could make the point, 
but the fact is if this goes on, the 10-year cost approaches $5 
billion, money that we could use to rebuild schools across the country 
and use for every American child, not merely the 2\1/2\ billion that is 
in here. So not only is it heading in the wrong direction, there is a 
subterfuge here that understates the cost by a great deal. I thank the 
gentleman for his observations.
  Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would thank the 
gentleman for making that point. I did not address the dollar cost to 
the Treasury. The point is a very good one. The point that I was trying 
to make is that this is a subsidy for upper-income suburbanites. This 
does not help anybody in the inner city send their kids anyplace. This 
is a sham piece of legislation, but I thank the gentleman for making 
the point that this, in addition to being a sham piece of legislation, 
that this does cost the Treasury potentially a good bit of money as we 
try and help those upper-income suburbanites send their kids to private 
school.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce].
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation. As the gentlewoman described, this rule makes in order the 
Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools, of which I am a 
proud cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no more important investment that we can make 
as a country than in the future of our Nation's children. Stimulating 
and challenging young minds through a quality education will ensure 
that they have the tools to achieve personal success, and to continue 
America's tradition of leadership and innovation.
  The bill this rule makes in order will allow every child to have an A 
plus account in which $2,500 may be deposited each year for that 
child's education. The interest on these investments will accrue tax-
free, and withdrawals can be spent for virtually any educational need, 
school books, computers, tutoring, uniforms, transportation, tuition, 
any of these things, from kindergarten all the way through to college. 
The beauty of these accounts is that the choice of how to spend the 
money is left to the parents.
  Make no mistake, this is not Government money, it is hard-earned 
taxpayer money coming out of the pockets of individuals who had the 
foresight and discipline to save it, whatever their income level. 
Nameless, faceless bureaucracy is taken out of the equation. All the 
Government is giving is a break to hard-working families who want the 
very best for their children.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle shrink at the 
thought of even the simplest education reforms, claiming that public 
education will be the loser. Their solution to what ails our education 
system is increased spending at the Federal level, more Federal strings 
attached, more one-size-fits-all solutions. I ask my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, why do they insist on killing public education 
by insisting that command and control remain in Washington?
  Under the Education Savings Act we get the best of both worlds: more 
investment in education, and greater involvement of parents and the 
others interested in the community. Public schools stand to gain as 
much as any other educational institution when there is more money 
available to go around.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support increased investment in 
our

[[Page H9050]]

Nation's future through the education of its children. Every Member 
should support this rule and the underlying legislation. Do it for the 
children.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted we are having this debate today 
because America needs to talk about education. Unfortunately, the 
Republican proposal is not the right direction. Now, I will admit, tax 
break savings accounts are not without their appeal. But the fact of 
the matter is this bill is being oversold. If Americans are in the so-
called middle class and they make $55,000, they only save $7. Even if 
they made up to $93,000 as a family, they would only save $32 a year. 
So do not let them suggest that Americans are going to get great tax 
savings out of these educational savings accounts.
  They come up here and talk about computers and books and school 
supplies and savings accounts for private schools. We can have that 
now. The only thing they try to do is create some sort of tax 
incentive, and as I indicated the tax savings are really quite meager.
  On the other hand, the Democrats are introducing a sound approach 
embodied in the Rangel substitute. What we are saying is let us take 
this money and repair our schools. As I recall, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] suggested that we needed education 
reforms, we need to fix our schools. Mr. Speaker, we do need to fix our 
schools. We need to repair leaking roofs. We need to provide 
technological advancements and computers for our schools. We need to 
build new schools to accommodate overcrowding. The Republican approach 
does not do that.
  The fact of the matter is that in America we have a tradition of 
public education. Even with private school expansion, 9 out of 10 
Americans will go to public schools. We need to have the money 
available to improve those public schools. That is what we want to do 
today.
  The Rangel substitute will allow us to look at some of our schools in 
our depressed communities and say we need to repair these schools. We 
need to improve the ventilation. We need to provide technological 
improvements to these schools. We need to make these schools schools 
that Americans can be proud of.
  Today in this debate we basically have a choice. We can give someone 
$7 a year and a tax break, or we can significantly improve America's 
schools in a real, significant way in terms of improving our 
educational infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is being oversold. I think the tax 
savings are very meager. The option that the Democrats provide is a 
much superior policy. I urge support for the Rangel substitute.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise 
in support of this rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to improve education for America's kids 
and they want to improve education for the largest number of kids. 
There has been a lot of talk, and I am sure there is going to be a 
continued amount of talk, about how this bill is going to destroy 
public education. The question I would pose to the opponents of this 
bill is: Is public education so bad that so many people are going to 
leave in droves, that public education is going to be destroyed by this 
legislation?
  Mr. Speaker, we have a child care tax credit and we do not make 
parents of those little kids who use the child care tax credit go to a 
public day care center. In the GI bill, we do not make veterans go to 
public colleges. They can go to a private college or a public college. 
As I understand it prior to the GI bill, prior to its enactment in 
1942, 50 percent of people went to private colleges and 50 percent went 
to public institutions, and under the GI bill now, today, 70 percent go 
to public colleges and 30 percent go to private institutions. So to say 
that this is going to destroy public education to me is a very, very 
fallacious argument.
  In my opinion, this legislation will help public education, and will 
help public education immensely, because when public educators know 
that there is really a marketplace out there and that parents might 
actually choose other institutions, it is going to force them to be 
more competitive and more innovative, and I think the quality of public 
education in America is going to improve under the A-plus Act, as more 
parents have the ability to choose in a marketplace of education where 
they send their kids, whether it be public or whether they choose to 
take their money and put it into private education, and after all it is 
their money. Right? They earned the money. It is the money that they 
earned on the job that we are letting them keep a little more of. It is 
not like it is our money and we are somehow in control of it. We are 
letting them keep a little bit more of their money by not taxing it, so 
they can apply it to their child's education. What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell Members what the result of this bill will 
be. More middle-class families and the working class families will be 
able to afford what the rich people in America already can do, which is 
to send their kids to private schools and, in so doing, it is going to 
help their kids and, in so doing, it is going to improve public 
education all across America. So to say this is going to destroy public 
education, that argument has no merit in my opinion.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I do not usually speak on a lot of bills 
and I do not think anybody in this House necessarily is against 
education. I think all of us are in favor of all the kids of this 
country having the best education that is available to them. But I have 
a particular problem with this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this bill in many ways is worse and different 
than the voucher argument, and we can have the voucher argument and I 
am sure we will have many more. But this does not involve a direct 
subsidy or whether we are for it or against it. It is an indirect 
subsidy.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily think this bill is going to help 
the poor or the middle class move out of the public schools, that the 
public schools are bad, or make public schools compete. The way this 
bill is structured, the people who are going to really benefit are the 
people in the upper income levels because it is a deduction. It is the 
people who have the disposable income. The people who are making up to 
$160,000 a year are going to benefit.
  Every Member in this body and the other body who is a joint filer, 
who has kids who are under 18, benefit under this bill because of the 
salary level of $133,000. But somebody who is making $50,000 a year or 
$4,000 or $20,000 a year is not going to receive the same benefit. So I 
think we need to look at what this really is. This is a tax break that 
is being given to the upper income.
  Maybe we are for that and maybe we are not. But let us talk about 
what it really is, and let us not talk about this that some way this is 
going to improve the education system because the way it is structured 
we know just does not get down the income stream. If Members want to do 
that, then maybe they ought to go back and bring about that bill and 
let us debate that on the floor. But here all we are doing is giving a 
tax break, a tax cut, to the upper end.
  Maybe we want to do that, maybe we do not. But I do not think that is 
what the American public is looking for. I think that they want to see 
the education system improved. They want to do like all of us who are 
parents, and my wife and I are parents of two daughters, we want to do 
whatever we can that is best for our children. But let us not do it by 
giving a tax break to the wealthy in this country.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Paul].
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was the original cosponsor of 2373, the 
Education Savings Act. That bill has changed. It is now 2646. I can 
support with reluctance this rule coming to the floor, but because of 
the changes that have occurred, I can no longer support this bill. 
There is nobody in this House that is a stronger supporter of credits 
and benefits and return of funds to parents to raise their children and 
give them a choice.

[[Page H9051]]

  There will be Members on this floor today who will oppose this bill 
because they cannot stand the idea of returning funds to parents and 
giving them a choice, but I am opposing it because this is a net tax 
increase. This is costing, and for that reason I can no longer support 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the best way to give individuals and families a 
true choice is to give them tax credit. Unfortunately, this is a small 
step in the right direction, which I could have supported if we would 
not have had to raise taxes. We are closing a so-called loophole, a 
benefit provided to the businessmen and the individuals who benefit 
from the way their vacation time is deducted. The courts ruled in favor 
of the taxpayer and here we are undermining it.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, our own committee here 
in the Congress has estimated that what we do here today will raise 
taxes $1.8 billion over the next 2 years. With the most optimistic 
projections on how many people will use these savings accounts, they 
are claiming there will only be a return of $600 million. So in the 
next 2 years, if this goes through, we will raise taxes three times as 
much as we are so-called returning.
  This is a net tax increase. It is not the way to go. We should do one 
thing to provide for these tax credits, one and only, and that is cut 
spending. Do my colleagues realize that if we would cut the National 
Endowment for the Arts by less than 3 percent we would have enough 
funds for this? That is all that we would need to do. But instead we go 
and we reverse the procedure of the courts which finally ruled in favor 
of the taxpayers, and now we are going to force them to reassess and 
revamp and make sure that those individuals on how they are handling 
their vacation time that more taxes will be paid.
  Mr. Speaker, it is estimated the most optimistic estimates on this 
bill in order to project what might happen is that 12 million people 
would use these accounts, the maximum amount of $2,500 for 5 years. It 
means $120 billion would be stashed away. That is very unlikely, but I 
do predict that the taxes will go up, unfortunately.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark].
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would love to give the preceding speaker, 
the gentleman from Texas, more time because he is quite right. What he 
points out, as one of the earlier speakers talked about leadership and 
innovation, what we do not need is more Republican leadership and 
innovation on how to screw the average American and give the benefits 
to the few Republican rich, and that is what this bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, it is poorly done. The bill is poorly drawn. It is 
sloppy legislation. For example, do my colleagues think these rich 
Republicans who qualify for this bill can take the tax qualified 
education savings and use it to purchase a car for their child? So we 
have here a tax break to let little kiddies buy cars. I suppose that is 
good if one is a Mercedes or a Ferrari dealer, but it is not going to 
help the average American who is going to have about $32 a year in 
savings, and how is that going to help them decide whether to pay 
$3,000, $5,000, $9,000 in tuition?
  I do not think the $32 makes a bupkis' worth of difference to the 
average American, and I do not think they are going to use this money 
one way or the other. But the Treasury will lose it to the richest 5 or 
6 percent of the Americans who will get all of the savings. It is a tax 
gimmick for the rich, just like the bills we have been passing out of 
the Committee on Ways and Means. We have been taking money from the 
average American taxpayer and shoveling it out the door to the rich 
Republicans as payoff, I presume, for whatever they think they can do. 
But it is not helping the average American.
  Mr. Speaker, this will allow a family to pay one child to tutor 
another child, and there is no effective income limit on this. This 
will allow very rich Americans who exceed the income limit to make 
gifts to their children, who can then invest in these two gimmicks, and 
it is an absolute dream for the tax attorney and the accountant to 
create loopholes for the rich who have a lot of assets, arguably enough 
assets to already send their children to private school.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is going to hurt public education 
at all. I do not think it is going to help private education at all. It 
is going to deal with a small group of people in the $90,000 to 
$160,000 category and create bountiful tax loopholes for them, to the 
extent that the American taxpayer will lose in the aggregate over $5 
billion.
  So, it is a few hundred dollars here and a few thousand dollars 
there, Mr. Speaker. But the average American who, at the most, at the 
absolute most, could get 30 bucks a year out of this, that is all they 
will get. That will make no difference in the child's education. In no 
way will it help their child get a better education. It just helps the 
rich get richer on the backs of the American worker.

                              {time}  1145

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, only for the purpose of setting the record 
straight on comments made by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Paul] for whom I have the greatest personal respect for his 
integrity, his genuineness and his sincerity. It just happens, however, 
that he is wrong in what he just said to the House.
  There is no tax increase in this bill. There is the closing of a 
corporate loophole, which I would think would appeal to my friend from 
California, to prevent the unintended use of the code in such a way 
that the Congress never believed it would be used. We are closing that 
loophole and we are gaining revenue from that.
  That is the appropriate thing to do. We will continue to do that 
under my stewardship of the Committee on Ways and Means wherever we 
find it in the code. It is not a tax increase. It is a removal of an 
unintended abuse of what Congress intended when they passed a provision 
in the code.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed at the effort by my 
Republican colleagues, the Republican leadership, the Speaker, to 
continue this effort to chip away at public education, not prioritize 
public education, and put all the emphasis on private education and 
private schools.
  This is just another example of it. These private education savings 
accounts proposals are not going to do anything to improve the public 
schools. There is no way you will convince me of that. It is just 
another tax break for wealthy Americans to help them pay for private 
schools.
  I think that the point really here is that whatever amount of money, 
whatever pot of money is being generated here or being saved here, 
however we want to characterize it, should be used for public education 
to improve our public schools.
  My colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] has a 
proposal, a substitute amendment that would take this money and instead 
of putting it to private schools from K to 12, the money would be used 
to help pay the interest on bonds that school districts could use to 
renovate their schools, to build more schools if they are overcrowded, 
to use for equipment in the public schools, to use for teacher 
training. What the Democrats have been saying over and over again is, 
yes, our public schools are good in most places. They need to be 
improved.
  If we are going to spend Federal dollars, if we are going to set up 
programs where we spend Federal money, then use it to help the public 
schools, use it for infrastructure, use it for teacher training, use it 
so they can hook up to the Internet. Do not start to emphasize and put 
all the priority on voucher systems and savings accounts that primarily 
encourage people to go to private schools. That is not the American 
way.
  If people in this country decide they do not want to take advantage 
of the public education system or do not want to participate in the 
public education system, that is their prerogative. But then let them 
spend their own money. I have to say, I agree with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark], that this is primarily something that benefits 
the wealthy. I do not think

[[Page H9052]]

that we should look at it primarily that way, but it does benefit the 
wealthy. I agree that this is primarily benefiting the wealthy. There 
is absolutely no question about that.
  If we look at the chart, the information that is provided by the 
Treasury Department, overwhelmingly this is going to benefit people in 
the higher income brackets. That also makes it unacceptable. But I want 
to stress that over and over again what we are hearing from the 
Republican side of the aisle is to give up essentially on the public 
schools. Let us find different ways, whether it is vouchers in the 
District of Columbia or it is this private school education savings 
account, let us find ways to encourage people and help those people who 
want to send their kids to private schools. That is wise use of Federal 
dollars.
  There is a lot of innovation taking place in public schools. There is 
a lot of examples where public schools have done things to improve 
basic skills, education, teacher training within the public schools. 
Let us encourage those things with the small amount of Federal dollars 
that we have. Let us encourage innovation in public schools and let 
them improve public school education in this country. There is 
absolutely no reason to go this way.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds for a point of 
clarification for the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey. We are 
not talking about taxpayer dollars. We are talking about savings 
accounts that can be used to pay expenses at either public or private 
schools. It is not going to siphon off any money from public education.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to read Karl Marx and 
Engels Communist Manifesto because in there the No. 1 creed is class 
warfare and you see it over and over and over again. The gentleman from 
California says the Republican plan, the Republican plan.
  Fact: The average school in Washington, DC is 86 years old. The roofs 
are falling apart. They canceled their schools. They are even concerned 
about putting heat in it. But yet does the gentleman want to get the 
maximum amount of dollars into the schools? No. He will support the 
unions.
  We wanted to waive Davis-Bacon, which will save 25 percent and invest 
in the schools to give teachers more money to build the infrastructure 
up for our schools. But yet the precious union gives money to the DNC 
and the DNCC illegally, and it is before this Nation right now. He puts 
a liberal spin on Republican plans. We want to get the money down to 
the teachers. We want to get the money to the classrooms. We want to 
get it into the infrastructure. Yet the liberal Democrats have cut 
education over the last 30 years. Let me give a couple examples.
  We get less than 48 cents out of every dollar down to the classroom 
because of the big bureaucracy in Washington, DC. The President's 
direct lending program, according to GAO, costs $6 billion more to 
administer. That is when it was capped at 10 percent, 6 billion, 
because the liberals want the Department of Education to control 
education just like Karl Marx and they do not want the money going down 
there. They wanted it to rest in River City so that they have control 
with their unions.
  We want the money to get to the kids, less than 48 cents out of every 
dollar. The President wanted a new $3 billion literacy program. There 
are 14 literacy programs in the Federal education system. Is it not 
fair to say, which of the 14 do we want? Let us fully fund them and let 
us put the money in? No. The liberals would say, we are cutting 
education, even though we are giving the parents, the teachers and the 
zip code, the local district, the money.
  What this does, it allows parents to make that decision. In 
Washington, DC the average cost is $10,200 per child. Yet did they 
support a system to where individuals, poor children, if a mother or a 
father or both said that their children are in an area where they are 
not getting a good education or they are being threatened because of 
crime and drugs, can they move?
  There are 20 Members that live in Washington, DC. Not a single one 
send their children to DC schools. They send them to private. Do you 
know that the cost is less than $3,000 versus $10,200. But yet, the 
liberals want big bureaucracy. They do not want the money going down. I 
am sick of class warfare. If we really want to help education, drive it 
down to the parents, give it to the teachers and give it to the 
infrastructure, not their precious unions.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman who just spoke of course is all over the ballpark in 
terms of his comments. I will try and pick and choose a few of those to 
respond to. It would be impossible to respond to everything that he has 
said. But he talked about illegal campaign contributions.
  I would remind the House once again as I have before, the only Member 
of this House who has been convicted during this Congress of violating 
the campaign laws is a Republican Member from the State of California. 
The only Member of this Congress to have been convicted of violating 
our campaign laws is a Republican Member from California who pled 
guilty to taking more than $200,000 of illegal corporate contributions.
  The gentleman has raised some other points. He was all over the 
ballpark, but I would like to respond to as many of these things as I 
can. Second, the gentleman talks about wanting to help parents. This 
particular piece of legislation, as I pointed out earlier, is a sham. 
The person who works on the assembly line at the General Motors plant 
in my district in Arlington, TX, who may make $40,000 working the 
assembly line, that person would get a $7 tax savings from this. The 
person who lives in the inner city in my district in Dallas, a Hispanic 
family who may want to send their children to the local parochial 
school, may earn, say, $30,000 a year, they would get a $2 tax break 
under this bill. The family who lives in one of my rural communities 
and who may want to send their child to a private school and who, say, 
earns $35,000 a year, might get a $7 tax break under this. This is a 
sham piece of legislation.
  This legislation is designed to benefit upper middle class 
constituents who live in the suburbs and who want to send their kids to 
private school. This does not help the person who works on the assembly 
line. This does not help the person who lives in the inner city. This 
is designed for a very narrow targeted group of people who are going to 
get all, virtually all the benefits under this plan.
  I am trying to respond to as many of the varied things that the 
gentleman said. The gentleman from California was concerned about 
infrastructure. We have a substitute offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel] that would provide money for infrastructure. It is 
exactly what we ought to be doing. We ought to be providing money to 
rebuild our schools, to put new roofs on our public schools, to rebuild 
them. The Rangel legislation, which would be a substitute to this ill-
conceived bill, would do exactly that.
  The other side has quite a bit of time left. I would at this time 
reserve the balance of my time. In a moment, I will yield to the 
gentleman from Texas when it is back to us, but I am sure the other 
side could yield time to the Republican Members from California who 
seek time because they have about the same amount of time left that we 
do.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman stated that the only 
person in this House, what he did not state is in the White House, in 
the Times and in the Post today it goes through where the White House 
campaign manager pleaded guilty, two of them, to laundering money from 
the unions to the DNC and that is in both papers today. They have 
already pled guilty. There is no doubt about the unions' attempt 
through the Carey Organization to launder money through the DNC into 
the Democrats' campaign coffers. Fact.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  To respond to the gentleman, he invoked the House campaign committee. 
He mentioned the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He 
invoked Members of the House. That is why I made the point that the 
only

[[Page H9053]]

Member of the House of Representatives who has been convicted of 
violating the campaign laws during this session is a Republican Member 
who took more than $200,000 in illegal corporate contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this before, but after 
hearing the gentleman from California, I wanted to address something. I 
think he was all over the ballpark. He made a comment about 20 Members 
of Congress who reside in Washington, DC and do not send their children 
to public schools. My children have been both in public schools and 
private schools. But the fact is, this bill, as I mentioned earlier, 
would entitle many Members of Congress, except those who have other 
income that exceeds the $160,000 limit, this is giving a tax break not 
only to people who make $160,000 a year, but to Members of Congress, 
including the ones that live in the District of Columbia. I have not 
talked to any Members of Congress who are asking for a tax break, but 
that is what this bill does.
  The gentleman also says that this is designed to get the money to the 
teachers. It is not going to do that. This is designed to give a tax 
break to people who have disposable income that they can set aside 
along with the income they set aside for other savings to help pay the 
cost of sending their kids to private school. Let us just be honest 
about what we are doing here. It is fine, if Members are for it, fine, 
but let us be honest about it. Let us not paint this beautiful picture 
about what it really is not. Let us be honest about what we are doing 
here.

                              {time}  1200

  So I think we need to clarify these points and understand that this 
is a tax break that we are giving.
  If we really want to help, if we really want to help, the other plan 
was to provide a $2,500 stipend, I believe, to some kids in Washington, 
DC, to go to private school. And if the gentleman says, well, the cost 
is $10,200 on the average, well, why not provide them the $10,200, if 
that is the goal? Bring that legislation.
  And maybe we should get a little more honest in how we debate 
legislation here. Let us figure out how we are going to pay for it. I 
know California's Governor and the other gentleman had a concern about 
the voucher system in California. But the fact is that these are just 
tidbits that are being handed out.
  The gentleman makes a very valid point, the assembly line worker in 
his district or my district does not get the same benefit because it is 
a deduction, and they do not have the same amount of disposable income 
as a Member of Congress or someone who earns up to $60,000 a year. Let 
us be honest
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and just 
want to point out to him that folks are investing after-tax dollars in 
these education savings accounts. That is after paying State income 
taxes, Federal income taxes, real property taxes and personal property 
taxes; all after-tax dollars. So we should keep that in perspective.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I came here to talk about improving education 
in America and I find myself caught up in a debate on class warfare. It 
is unfortunate.
  Just to reflect back, we had a mayor in the city of Syracuse, a 
Democrat, who always reminded us that the Democrats were the party of 
the poor and the Republicans were the party of the rich. He went to 
jail for 14 years for operating a kickback scheme. But the fact is 
there were always Volvos and Cadillacs and Rolls Royces in front of 
city hall, operated by the mayor and his friends, the Democrats, the 
party of the poor, while the Republican councilmen were out driving 
Chevys and Plymouths. So it is bunk. Let us put it to rest. There are 
people of good will in both parties.
  The debate here is about the future of education in this country. 
This debate is about whether or not to improve education by creating 
competition. It is about empowering parents to make the best choice 
with their hard-earned dollars to spend on their kids' education. What 
do we want for our kids? We want them to have a life better than ours. 
Let us give them every opportunity.
  The liberal Democrats, and by the way they are not all liberals 
anymore, thank God, their way has been to tax people to death and then 
give the money back. This is exactly what the substitute that they are 
offering says: Tax people to death, then give them money back with 
strings attached and basically tell them how to use that money.
  Our way is to let parents make that decision on how and where their 
kids will be educated, private or public schools. Let us not forget 
that those parents are paying public property taxes to support public 
schools anyway.
  Let us give poor and middle-class families the same opportunity to 
send their kids to the school of their choice just as our wealthy 
President, President Clinton, has the option to send his child to a 
private school.
  This is not about rich versus poor; this is about the future of 
education in this country. And let us make parents, rich, poor or 
middle class, let us give them all the same choice that just the rich 
people have now.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The gentleman makes a fine statement, the problem is he ignores the 
facts. The facts are that poor and middle-class families get almost 
nothing under this plan. It only goes to upper middle-class families. A 
family earning up to $17,000 a year gets $1 in tax savings under this 
bill; a family earning between $17,000 and $33,000 a year gets $2 in 
tax savings; a family earning between $33,000 and $55,000 a year gets 
$7 a year in tax savings under this.
  This does not help poor and middle-class families send their kids 
anyplace. This benefits upper middle-class suburban constituents. We 
ought to be honest about this. We ought to be clear about who benefits 
under this bill and who does not benefit, that is the only point I am 
making.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is consistent in his argument 
against school choice, but inconsistent in his argument on who should 
benefit.
  Is the gentleman opposed to the idea of providing scholarships for 
poor families in Washington, DC?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am opposed to using tax 
money to send kids to private schools in Washington, DC; that is 
correct.
  I am only asking that when Members on the other side argue in favor 
of this bill they should not pretend that this bill helps lower income 
and middle-class families because it does not. I am only asking they be 
honest in their statements.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to the point I made 
earlier; that, again, the folks investing in these accounts, and the 
gentleman should correct me if I am wrong now in his interpretation of 
the bill, have already paid Federal and State income taxes, they have 
paid real property taxes, they have paid personal property taxes, and a 
good portion of those taxes will go to support public schools. All 
public schools for all children. And that the money that they are 
investing in these education savings accounts are after-tax dollars; is 
that a correct statement?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to 
respond to the gentleman. Clearly that is the case. They are just not 
getting anything out of this, unless they happen to be wealthy.
  This does not help lower income and middle-class families. The 
gentleman is correct, it is after-tax dollars. It just does not happen 
to help most of the families in the country.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page H9054]]

  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families, otherwise known as the K-12 Education Subcommittee, I rise in 
strong support of the rule and in strong support of this legislation 
allowing parents and families and, for that matter, concerned third 
parties to create and invest in education savings accounts.
  Now, I want to point out that this is one of several Republican-
sponsored education initiatives that will give parents more freedom and 
more control. And I understand, if we can advance the argument for just 
a moment beyond class warfare and the politics of envy, I think I 
understand why that is so threatening to the other side and why they so 
strongly oppose this legislation.
  They seem to be motivated by fear. They are reactionary. They are 
concerned and threatened by the growing effort to infuse more 
competition and parental choice into our school system in response to 
the demands on the part of education consumers, parents, and guardians.
  They oppose parental choice because they are carrying water, let us 
be clear about this, for the National Teachers Unions, the core 
constituency of the National Democratic Party. They oppose parental 
choice because this threatens the education establishment's monopoly of 
financial control over our schools.
  So it makes no difference whether we are talking about the 
legislation we did a couple of weeks ago providing opportunity 
scholarships to 2,000 District of Columbia children, those children, by 
the way, gentlemen, are children in poor families, the poorest of the 
poor, children who are trapped in failing or unsafe schools, as we have 
already heard.
  Next week we will have a bill out on this floor that I cosponsored 
with a Democrat Member of this House, the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. 
Tim Roemer], very bipartisan effort, to expand public school choice 
through the creation of more charter schools, again giving parents more 
choice in the public school system.
  It will be very interesting to see how the distinguished Members who 
have spoken against the education savings account, how they will vote 
on this matter, because in committee 10 Democrats supported the 
legislation but 8 voted against it.
  We will also try to bring legislation here to the floor called HOPE 
scholarships that will expand on the proven success of giving parents 
in the cities of Milwaukee and Cleveland, expand that proven success 
nationwide, so that those very low-income parents, those same families 
that my colleagues profess so much concern for will have the 
opportunity, through taxpayer-funded scholarships, or tuition grants, 
to send their children to another school.
  Why are we doing this? Because we fundamentally believe that every 
single parent should be able to select the best, most appropriate 
education for their child. And with these education savings accounts, I 
point out again, they are investing after-tax dollars. After they have 
paid all of their Federal, all of their State taxes, a good portion of 
which goes to support public education, all schools, all children.
  And to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], I do not think he can 
deny that particular argument. So more freedom and more control 
because, after all, for parents, it is their money, it is their 
children, it is their future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask the time remaining on each side so that 
we know where we are.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard words here this morning about labor unions 
and bureaucracy and liberals, and I am willing to stipulate to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I am a liberal. More 
than half of the families in my district have a labor union member in 
their household. They work with their hands; they work on their feet, 
something that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have had very little contact with in their lifetime. They work hard and 
they make very little money. They are in the vast majority in this 
country, and they are not getting any benefit from this bill.
  Let us leave education aside. Many of them, a majority of them, they 
send their children to parochial schools, wish they had the money to 
send them to private schools if they could find scholarships. But the 
fact is that less than 6 percent of the wealthiest Americans will get 
anything out of this. So it is those labor union people, those 
hardworking public schoolteachers, who the Republicans would turn their 
backs on and cut their salaries and deny them increased funding, that I 
am proud to support.
  I am proud to support the working Americans in this country who are 
getting nothing out of this except to have their hard-earned dollars 
drained so that the very rich Republicans, and if that is class 
warfare, let it be. Because it is when the class wakes up who is paying 
the freight for these huge deductions for the millionaire, billionaire 
Republicans who are getting the benefits that they are going to 
understand that the people in charge of this House are stealing the 
money from the hardworking Americans and frittering it away to the idle 
rich.
  So if my colleagues are rich enough to have inherited money, if they 
are rich enough to have never had a real job in their life, if they 
know nothing, I hear all these guys talking about the market and free 
enterprise. Most of them have been at the public trough all their lives 
and never had a job in public industry.
  So I say I am proud to be a liberal, proud to represent the working 
men and women of this country who will get no benefit from this bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  As a Member of this Congress who worked hard all my life in the 
restaurant business and the travel agency business and the real estate 
business, I am proud of the taxes I paid and the common sense that I 
bring to this Chamber.
  My father just retired, after 20-some years, as a principal in a 
public school. So I care deeply about public education. I grew up in it 
and around it and graduated from it. But the notion somehow that the 
assembly worker is not going to be able to make a prudent investment 
decision with his IRA and earn more than $7 tax-free interest in a 
given year is ludicrous. That assembly line worker could invest 
appropriately in a mutual fund and have higher earnings enabling 
himself to educate his children.
  Now, we hear all the time about these taxpayers, these wealthy 
individuals who, yes, are paying higher property taxes in their 
communities, who are paying higher real estate and public school 
educational costs, who are paying higher payroll taxes, who are paying 
higher IRS taxes and who are not going to have any of those funds 
removed from public education due to this bill. But, in fact, they are 
going to be having an opportunity to help educate their children of all 
economic structures.
  Let us talk about some of the benefits of the bill that may happen if 
somehow some parent decides that they may choose a public, a private or 
a parochial school. If they choose one of the two, private or 
parochial, lower construction costs for public education because of 
fewer students. Fewer teachers, because fewer students will be in that 
classroom. Fewer books to pay for. Fewer security guards. So lower cost 
to the public taxpayers due to this innovative proposal.
  But let me also suggest that there is a bit of irony today on the 
floor, because the gentlemen from Texas, who rise repeatedly to object 
to this bill, voted for a very similar provision in a recent tax bill 
passed by this very Congress that allowed for an IRA for educational 
costs for higher education. Both gentlemen from Texas voted for that 
provision.
  And this is not any different. But it is giving parents a chance to 
save money, and that is something we should be proud of in America, 
that we

[[Page H9055]]

are encouraging savings. We read in every magazine that there are fewer 
and fewer savers in America saving their funds for the future.

                              {time}  1215

  Finally, we are earmarking a chance for people to save those dollars 
for the very best intention, and that is the education of our children, 
to give them a future in which to earn a living and hopefully after 
hard work like myself, be able to be a Member of this Congress and 
contribute constructively to the debate regarding these types of 
programs.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do 
not want to get into the debates of saving patterns and the economic 
data on that, but let us talk about a couple of things. Let me say, 
personal property taxes, which we do not have in Texas, State and local 
taxes really are not of our concern at the Federal level. We should 
leave up to the State and local governments to decide how they want to 
fund public education. I think we all agree with that. But let me put 
again back in perspective my concern about this. I will talk about my 
public sector experience, not when I was in the private sector as a 
banker. When I was a staffer on the Hill and I made $25,000 a year, I 
would not have as much disposable income like the staffers on the Hill 
to do that to set aside. But now as a Member of Congress making 
$133,000 a year, under this bill I would have more disposable income, 
therefore, I have more income to invest, whether it is a prudent 
investment or not. But just the fact of having more principal to 
invest, I should get a greater return and have more income. That is the 
biggest point about this. It is a question of who has the greatest 
amount of disposable income. You have got it backwards in this bill. If 
you really want to go in and say we are trying to help the middle class 
and lower middle class rather than helping the Congressmen who make 
$133,000 a year but trying to help the staffers, do a credit, reverse 
it, but it does not work the way you are doing it.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we hear in this body over and over that 
the liberals represent the working person. They represent the union, 
which only accounts for 6 percent of the work force in this country. 
Ninety-four percent of the jobs in this country are nonunion. So if you 
support the working men and women, get rid of Davis-Bacon, get rid of 
the inhibitors that kill jobs in this country. I do not think we ought 
to tax savings. I do not think we ought to tax works but consumption. 
That is a different bill. But we should not tax savings, savings of any 
American regardless of their income level when it goes for education of 
the children.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
This piece of legislation is a sham piece of legislation. This does not 
help lower income people in the inner cities. This does not help 
middle-class people no matter where they live, whether they live in the 
cities, the suburbs or in rural areas. This only helps one class of 
individuals, upper income constituents who live in the suburbs and who 
send their kids to private schools. This helps people who earn between 
$93,000 and $160,000 a year. We can debate whether there ought to be 
any type of help for people who send their children to private schools. 
That is a separate issue. This is a narrowly targeted piece of 
legislation that does not help any hard-working individual in the 
middle class send their children to private school if they choose to 
send their children to private school. It should be accurately 
advertised and accurately presented. We should not be telling the 
public that we are doing something for them that we are not doing for 
them. We are helping one very narrow category of person who chooses to 
send their children to private school. This is a bad piece of 
legislation. I support the rule because it does make in order a 
substitute to be offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] 
which will permit us to get on with repairing the infrastructure of the 
public schools in this country. I urge adoption of the rule, I urge 
adoption of the Rangel substitute, and if the Rangel substitute is not 
adopted, I urge defeat of this bill on final passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 287, 
nays 135, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 522]

                               YEAS--287

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--135

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards

[[Page H9056]]


     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bliley
     Brown (CA)
     Cubin
     Dingell
     Flake
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Houghton
     Linder
     McIntosh
     Schiff

                              {time}  1241

  Ms. McKINNEY and Mr. STUPAK changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. RANGEL, RAHALL and McINTYRE changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________