[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.
____________________