[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9056-H9076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 274, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 2646) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
allow tax-free expenditures from education individual retirement 
accounts for elementary and secondary school expenses, to increase the 
maximum annual amount of contributions to such accounts, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The bill is considered read for 
amendment.
  The text of H.R. 2646 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2646

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Education Savings Act for 
     Public and Private Schools''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT 
                   ACCOUNTS.

       (a) Tax-Free Expenditures for Elementary and Secondary 
     School Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--Section 530(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Qualified education expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified education expenses' 
     means--
       ``(i) qualified higher education expenses (as defined in 
     section 529(e)(3)), and
       ``(ii) qualified elementary and secondary education 
     expenses (as defined in paragraph (4)).

     Such expenses shall be reduced as provided in section 
     25A(g)(2).
       ``(B) Qualified state tuition programs.--Such term shall 
     include amounts paid or incurred to purchase tuition credits 
     or certificates, or to make contributions to an account, 
     under a qualified State tuition program (as defined in 
     section 529(b)) for the benefit of the beneficiary of the 
     account.''
       (2) Qualified elementary and secondary education 
     expenses.--Section 530(b) of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Qualified elementary and secondary education 
     expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified elementary and 
     secondary education expenses' means tuition, fees, tutoring, 
     special needs services, books, supplies, equipment, 
     transportation, and supplementary expenses required for the 
     enrollment or attendance of the designated beneficiary of the 
     trust at a public, private, or religious school.
       ``(B) Special rule for homeschooling.--Such term shall 
     include expenses described in subparagraph (A) required for 
     education provided for homeschooling if the requirements of 
     any applicable State or local law are met with respect to 
     such education.
       ``(C) School.--The term `school' means any school which 
     provides elementary education or secondary education (through 
     grade 12), as determined under State law.''
       (3) Conforming amendments.--Subsections (b)(1) and (d)(2) 
     of section 530 of such Code are each amended by striking 
     ``higher'' each place it appears in the text and heading 
     thereof.
       (b) Increase in Maximum Annual Contributions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 530(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$500'' and 
     inserting ``$2,500''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 530(d)(4)(C) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$2,500''.
       (B) Section 4973(e)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$2,500''.
       (c) Waiver of Age Limitations for Children With Special 
     Needs.--Paragraph 1 of section 530(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     flush sentence: ``The age limitations in the preceding 
     sentence shall not apply to any designated beneficiary with 
     special needs (as determined under regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary).''
       (d) Corporations Permitted To Contribute To Accounts.--
     Paragraph (1) of section 530(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by striking ``The maximum amount which a 
     contributor'' and inserting ``In the case of a contributor 
     who is an individual, the maximum amount the contributor''.
       (e) Effective Date; References.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     section 213 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
       (2) References.--Any reference in this section to any 
     section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be a 
     reference to such section as added by the Taxpayer Relief Act 
     of 1997.

     SEC. 3. OVERRULING OF SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY CASE.

       (a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
     applied (other than with respect to severance pay) without 
     regard to the result reached in the case of Schmidt Baking 
     Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 107 T.C. 
     271 (1996).
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury or the 
     Secretary's delegate shall prescribe regulations to reflect 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to 
     taxable years ending after October 8, 1997.
       (2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any 
     taxpayer required by this section to change its method of 
     accounting for its first taxable year ending after October 8, 
     1997--
       (A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the 
     taxpayer,
       (B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent 
     of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
       (C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken 
     into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account in 
     such first taxable year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, 
modified by the amendment printed in part 1 of House Report 105-336, is 
adopted.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified by part 1 of House Report 105-336 pursuant to House Resolution 
274, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2646

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Education Savings Act for 
     Public and Private Schools''.

     SEC. 2 MODIFICATIONS TO EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT 
                   ACCOUNTS.

       (a) Tax-Free Expenditures for Elementary and Secondary 
     School Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--Section 530(b)(2) of the Internal revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Qualfied education expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified education expenses' 
     means--
       ``(i) qualified higher education expenses (as defined in 
     section 529(e)(3)), and
       ``(ii) qualified elementary and secondary education 
     expenses (as defined in paragraph (4)) but only with respect 
     to amounts in the account which are attributable to 
     contributions for any taxable year ending before January 1, 
     2003, and earnings on such contributions:

     Such expenses shall be reduced as provided in section 
     25A(g)(2).

[[Page H9057]]

       ``(B) Qualified state tuition programs.--Such term shall 
     include amounts paid or incurred to purchase tuition credits 
     or certificates, or to make contributions to an account, 
     under a qualified State tuition program (as defined in 
     section 529(b)) for the benefit of the beneficiary of the 
     account.''
       (2) Qualified elementary and secondary education 
     expenses.--Section 530(b) of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Qualified elementary and secondary education 
     expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified elementary and 
     secondary education expenses' means tuition, fees, tutoring, 
     special needs services, books, supplies, computer equipment 
     (including related software and services) and other 
     equipment, transportation, and supplementary expenses 
     required for the enrollment or attendance of the designated 
     beneficiary of the trust at a public, private, or religious 
     school.
       ``(B) Special rule for homeschooling.--Such term shall 
     include expenses described in subparagraph (A) required for 
     education provided for homeschooling if the requirements of 
     any applicable State or local law are met with respect to 
     such education.
       ``(C) School--The term `school' means any school which 
     provides elementary education or secondary education (through 
     grade 12), as determined under State law.''
       (3) Conforming amendments.--Subsections (b)(1) and (d)(2) 
     of section 530 of such Code are each amended by striking 
     ``higher'' each place it appears in the text and heading 
     thereof.
       (b) Temporary Increase in Maximum Annual Contributions--
       (1) In general.--Section 530(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$500'' and 
     inserting ``the contribution limit for such taxable year''.
       (2) Contribution limit.--Section 530(b) of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Contribution limit.--The term `contribution limit' 
     means $2,500 ($500 in the case of any taxable year ending 
     after December 31, 2002).''
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 530(d)(4)(C) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``$500'' and inserting ``the contribution limit for 
     such taxable year''.
       (B) Section 4973(e)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``$500'' and inserting ``the contribution limit (as 
     defined in section 530(b)(4)) for such taxable year''.
       (c) Waiver of Age Limitations for Children With Special 
     Needs.--Paragraph (1) of section 530(b) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following flush sentence: ``The age limitations in the 
     preceding sentence shall not apply to any designated 
     beneficiary with special needs (as determined under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary).''
       (d) Corporations Permitted to Contribute to Accounts.--
     Paragraph (1) of section 530(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by striking ``The maximum amount which a 
     contributor'' and inserting ``In the case of a contributor 
     who is an individual, the maximum amount the contributor''.
       (e) Effective Date; References.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     section 213 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
       (2) References.--Any reference in this section to any 
     section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be a 
     reference to such section as added by the Taxpayer Relief Act 
     of 1997.

     SEC. 3. OVERRULING OF SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY CASE.

       (a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
     applied without regard to the result reached in the case of 
     Schmidt Baking Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal 
     Revenue, 107 T.C. 271 (1996).
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury or the 
     Secretary's delegate shall prescribe regulations to reflect 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to 
     taxable years ending after October 8, 1997.
       (2) Change in methods of accounting.--In the case of any 
     taxpayer required by this section to change its method of 
     accounting for its first taxable year ending after October 8, 
     1997--
       (A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the 
     taxpayer,
       (B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent 
     of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
       (C) the next amount of the adjustments required to be taken 
     into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account in 
     such first taxable year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment 
specified in part 2 of the report, if offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel] or his designee, which shall be considered read and 
debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel] shall each control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].

                              {time}  1245


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous matter on H.R. 2646.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was reading in the paper yesterday that our 
schoolchildren are unable to demonstrate a basic knowledge of science. 
The article said that more than half of the fourth graders who recently 
took a national science test could not even identify the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans.
  This is more than troublesome. If America is to remain competitive in 
the global arena, an arena whose battles are often fought with science 
and technology, we need to see that our children have the mental tools 
they need to succeed.
  In the balanced budget bill, we gave the parents the help that they 
need by college IRA's, IRA's to make college more affordable with the 
same income caps, the same levels as are in this bill. Today we extend 
that same type of help to parents with younger children in K through 
12, elementary and secondary education. The legislation we consider 
allows parents, grandparents, and others to put up to $2,500 a year in 
education savings accounts where it can grow tax-free, and be used for 
a wide variety of educational uses.
  The bill is one of the best things, in my opinion, to happen to 
education. It is good for public schools, it is good for private 
schools, it is good for parochial schools, and it is good for home 
schooling. But most importantly, it is good for students everywhere, 
and that means that it is good for America's future.
  An estimated 14.3 million Americans will sign up for these accounts 
by the year 2002, and 75 percent, and I accentuate this, 75 percent of 
those families will have children in public schools. Here is how it 
works. If a child in public, private, or home schooling needs a tutor 
for science or for any other subject, a parent can tap the educational 
savings account. If a child in public, private, or home schooling needs 
books or supplies, a parent can tap the account. If a child has special 
needs, and our heart and help should go out to those children who are 
in special need, which often spans a lifetime, a parent can use the 
account. If a parent needs to provide transportation so a child can 
attend a good school, the account may be tapped.
  I cannot think of anything more important to the American people than 
their children and their children's educations. While this bill may not 
guarantee that fourth graders will know the location of oceans, it will 
help their parents improve the education opportunities. Is this bill a 
panacea for all of our education ills? Of course not. But we should not 
wait for the day when we have a magic solution to all of the ills, we 
should do what we can at this moment. This is a can-do proposition.
  Mr. Speaker, this concludes my remarks, but I take a moment to inform 
the Chamber that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] asked to be 
included as a cosponsor of this measure, but was inadvertently left off 
the cosponsor list.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 2646, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let me 
join with the leadership of the House in stressing how important it is 
that we allow our young people to get access to a decent education as 
soon as we can. Mr. Speaker, when we dream about the economic 
opportunities that will be had for Americans, and those people that we 
intend to trade with in all parts of the world, one thing we take for 
granted is that academically our young people will be able to get the 
training in order to participate in what is going to be for history a 
revolutionary and exciting time.
  Yet, we go to that bargaining table with 1.6 million people in jail. 
God knows, I believe if you violate the law,

[[Page H9058]]

justice should take a hand and you should be removed from society. But 
why is this number of people continuing to explode? Why is it that 80 
percent of the crimes are not violent? Why are they all drug-related? 
Why are all of the people in jail illiterate, unemployable? Why do they 
all seem to be coming from communities where the school system has 
failed?
  The answer has to be because it is out of these communities that 
there is no hope, there are no dreams, there are no opportunities. Life 
really does not mean that much, and jail is no real, serious threat. So 
now our country finds the U.S. Congress interfering with local schools 
by suggesting that we need more prisons than we need schools. It is 
sad, but that is how it is going to be recorded. Local and State 
governments are involved in prison-making, not making students prepared 
in order to get a decent education.
  Even our great President targeted colleges, and we are now trying to 
find some bridge to go from before school to be prepared for college. 
So I can see how Mr. Coverdell could respond to a tax initiative and 
say, let us make more money available for people to just spend, if they 
can find some reason to spend that money on a child before they go to 
college.
  I think that we cannot even call it an educational bill, because soon 
we will see that there is no education attached to this. It is bad tax 
law, because soon we will see that if we are looking for 
simplification, tell me what a taxpayer is going to have to put on the 
sheet in order to justify that they spent this money that they had in a 
tax-free account on education? We are going to have to look long and 
hard to find any education in this bill, but we do not have to look 
long and hard to find a tax break in this bill.
  Let us get to something that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] 
and I are working on now in a bipartisan way, the restructuring of the 
internal revenue system. Prior to pulling it up by its roots, we will 
restructure it. It is going to cost some money to restructure the 
Internal Revenue Service. Any decent American politician that wants to 
get reelected had better prepare some kind of way to get a good knock 
in there against the Internal Revenue Service. It is going to be good 
this year, and it will be better next year.
  So in order to restructure it, we need some money. We have come up 
with the money, at least the majority have, to pay for that. So I was 
surprised in asking the question, how are we going to pay for the 
education savings account? Guess what, we are going to use the same 
money. No, do not tell me we cannot use the same money to pay for two 
things, if it is the same amount of money. We are Ways and Means, we 
know that much. Which one do we want to fund out of this one source of 
money, Coverdell, or the restructuring of the IRS? We do not know, but 
we will spend the money on the first bill that reaches the President's 
desk and he signs.
  Let me tell the Members this, if they are for paying for the 
restructuring of the Internal Revenue Service, Members have to strike 
down Coverdell, because if we pass Coverdell and the money is spent for 
Coverdell, we have no money for Internal Revenue Service. But I assume 
this technical point will be explained by the majority, since they able 
to do that well.
  Let me say that what I am trying to do with my bill, which we will 
have an opportunity to vote for or against, is to allow the local 
school districts to recognize, in areas where they are failing, that 
they need some help. If they can successfully bring the private sector 
in and form a partnership in a special academy, where the curriculum is 
not just set by educators but by the business people, who know the 
skills that are going to be necessary to hire these people, we will be 
able with this very same money to allow them to issue bonds to rebuild 
the schools, to get the equipment.
  But under Coverdell, all we will be able to do is say that somebody 
that had the disposable income of up to $2,500, or a friend of theirs 
that may want to give a gift to the child and put it in to deposit it 
tax-free, will be able to withdraw this for tutors, for babysitters, 
for taxicabs, for movies, for anything that they think is necessary to 
make that child happy.
  Remember, the burden will be on the IRS, if we are able to find the 
money to restructure it, to prove that the money was used for an 
educational experience. Talk about a horror story, we are now about to 
hear it from Members that understand what is in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] is 
recognized for 3 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the committee, for yielding time to 
me, and for this opportunity to come to the well and engage in honest 
dialogue and debate concerning the future of our children.
  I listened with great interest to my colleague, the gentleman from 
New York, the distinguished ranking member, and listened also as he 
outlined literally the horrors that confront American families today in 
so many neighborhoods, including the neighborhood and the community 
that my colleague from New York represents.
  What we have here today, Mr. Speaker, is a historic opportunity to 
help those families, to help those parents seize control of the money 
they earn to direct an education in the way they see fit, whether it is 
choosing a school that the parents and family and others believe is 
best suited for the education of that child, or seeking outside help, 
remedial tutoring or extra-educational aid, such as textbooks or 
computers; to have a savings account, a tax-free interest-bearing 
account to put the control back in the hands of American parents. For 
those people should literally hold the destiny of their children in 
their hands, and this affords those parents the chance.
  Mr. Speaker, we have made great strides in allowing these educational 
accounts for college-bound students. Why, then, would we deprive 
children from kindergarten through the 12th grade of the same 
opportunity?
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out a special provision of this bill that 
I believe is vitally important, an ability for parents of children with 
special needs to look beyond the chronological age to continue to have 
money in these accounts to help those children.
  Mr. Speaker, one of my first cousins has Downs syndrome. My uncle and 
aunt were blessed that they lived in a community with a school district 
with the ability to help educate children with special needs. But the 
challenge is for parents of children with special needs that, in our 
situation today, quite literally many of those parents are at the mercy 
of the local school districts in terms of quality of education.
  Mr. Speaker, when we adopt this bill today we do not leave any 
parents, but especially those parents of children with special needs, 
literally at the mercy of the accident of geography, and where they 
happen to live in a school district.
  What we have, Mr. Speaker, with this bill, and I urge its passage and 
the creation of these special savings accounts, is the chance to give 
families the opportunity to make the choices to help benefit their 
children. I urge passage of this bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, so that we can make certain that we confine 
our remarks to what is in the bill, does the gentleman have any idea 
where a child with special needs would be in the bill before us? I 
would urge the gentleman, please, not to place his arguments on special 
needs, because there is absolutely no description in this legislation 
as to what is a special needs child, which means that every parent, I 
would like to believe, would believe that their child has special needs 
and there is no way in the world to disprove it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona, I am sure, intends to be 
accurate, but the accuracy is this bill provides for a lifetime ability 
for parents

[[Page H9059]]

with children that have special needs, rather than a cutoff at an age 
limit under current law. The definition of special needs is to be done 
by the Treasury, and it is a part of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I say that 
respectfully in response to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not know as we debate this bill what a special 
need is, but we can imagine and hope that Treasury will come up with 
something. And if the gentleman is talking about a lifetime, I do not 
know why he sunset the bill in 5 years, but I am sure he will have 
enough time to explain that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is 
the confluence of two bad Republican ideas, one of which provides tax 
breaks for our wealthiest people and not for those in the middle class 
who truly need it, and the other is to emphasize private schools under 
the guise of reforming public education.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is flawed for a number of reasons. I think we 
will hear more about the ability, for example, to buy a car under this 
proposal in order to transport students to school. But it is also 
flawed because it puts in the hands of people making over $93,000, 70 
percent of all the benefits. In other words, it could be called the 
Prep School Promotion Act of 1997, more than a public school reform 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to be putting resources into reducing class 
sizes, we ought to be putting resources into wiring our public schools, 
training our teachers. We have an understanding of what it takes to 
improve the infrastructure of our public school system, but we are 
going to take $4 billion over the next 10 years and divert it to people 
who would like to perhaps start or perhaps be subsidized in their 
attendance already in private institutions.
  We do not really help the average American with this bill. We hold 
out a carrot to an industry or to some few individuals, many of whom 
have the capacity to already engage in educating their children 
privately. It is a God-given American right to do so. We do not have to 
be diverting our hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to those families, 
while our public schools across the country are lacking basics. And I 
do not mean just in inner cities or rural areas; in high-growth suburbs 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, we can make improvements in our public educational 
system and we ought to do it. This is a diversion and it is a travesty.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, has anyone noticed that the 
President will endorse any education initiative as long as it supports 
big government, like Goals 2000? Like national testing? This is the 
same President that threatens to veto any program that increases 
parental control over a child's education.
  Mr. Speaker, look at this administration's track record. They opposed 
education block grants to States, they oppose vouchers for the poorest, 
poorest 2,000 children, and now they oppose this bill, which gives 
parents the ability to invest up to $2,500 a year in their child's 
education so that they can attend the safest and most academically 
challenging school available.
  Why is the President against parents sending their children to the 
school of their choice? Surely he cannot believe that Washington 
bureaucrats are smarter than parents. And I hope it is not because he 
is so politically indebted to the special interests in Washington, like 
the National Education Association for instance, that he can no longer 
see what is best for America's kids.
  Well, whatever the reason, Mr. Speaker, this President is wrong to 
oppose this bill. This bill will not only strengthen our children's 
future by giving the parents a tool to make sure their children can 
attend a school that meets their needs, needs only a parent can 
determine. No one can seriously argue that there is anything wrong with 
giving parents, grandparents, and friends the power to invest in a 
child's education. America's future depends on our children, and we 
ought to provide those parents with whatever they need to make sure 
that their children are the most educated, productive, and successful 
in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I would to urge the President to join us as we try to 
help parents help their children. I urge all of my colleagues here in 
the House to do the same. Vote for this bill. Give our children a 
chance to grow up to be great Americans.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2646. I think 
the credibility of the Congress is greatly injured by playing these 
kinds of college boy, sophisticated games around the edges of a crucial 
issue like education reform.
  Mr. Speaker, we are showing off with college boy sophistication while 
we reject the common sense of the American people. They want something 
real done about the education reform problem. They do not want us to 
continue to play games. Our credibility is now down to 36 percent. I 
understand this Congress dropped from 40 percent. This is the reason. 
We are not serious here. We like to show off among ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, the voters out there clearly want decisive action on 
education reform and improvement. They keep saying it again and again 
and again. In this 105th Congress, instead of playing games, we should 
take advantage of this window of opportunity to do something 
significant. The people are saying they want a real effort by Congress 
to deal with the education problems.
  Instead of education savings accounts and other headline-seeking 
tricks, we should unite in launching a bipartisan omnibus bill around 
the things that both Republicans and Democrats already agree on. We 
agree that we need more teacher training and that Federal aid would 
greatly help that teacher training process. We agree we need more 
technology in the schools; both Republicans and Democrats are in favor 
of giving aid for more technology.
  We agree on charter schools. Instead of pushing vouchers and 
education savings accounts, why not unite in the areas that we agree? 
We are both in favor of charter schools, both parties. Why do we not 
move forward in some kind of way which is commensurate with the 
problem?
  Let us understand that schools are at the core of what should be a 
massive opportunity system in America which will generate the kind of 
educated population we need as we go into the 21st century. We are the 
indispensable Nation. We are going to have to continue to hold on to a 
leadership role. We cannot do that unless we have the most highly 
educated population.
  Mr. Speaker, let us stop playing games and let us have some real 
Federal aid to education that meets the common sense needs of the 
American people.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a respected Member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in my area of northwestern 
Pennsylvania one of the biggest challenges facing the middle class is 
the affordability of education, and this is something that affects 
middle-class families across a range of circumstances. It is the single 
biggest barrier to the next generation being able to penetrate through 
and achieve the American dream.
  Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of educational tax relief for all stages 
of schooling, I rise in strong support of this legislation, the 
Gingrich-Coverdale approach with education savings accounts for private 
and public schools.
  This legislation allows parents to establish a tax-free savings 
account to be used for a child's education at any school from 
kindergarten through high school on to college. This legislation will 
expand the education savings account provisions included in our tax 
bill of this year by, first of all, increasing from $500 to $2,500 per 
year the maximum amount of contributions

[[Page H9060]]

that can be made to an education savings account; second of all, to 
include elementary and secondary school expenses; third, to allow 
corporate entities as parties to be able to contribute to an ESA on 
someone's behalf.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in supporting this legislation to 
renew our commitment to helping families afford the full range of 
educational expenses demanded through our children's lifetimes. There 
are no, to coin the term of the previous speaker, ``college boy 
sophisticated games'' here. This is tax relief that a broad range of 
families can access.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I realize the left wing of this body hates 
this proposal. They think that any resources that are diverted into 
private institutions, even through tax-free accounts, is a use of 
public funds. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my Democrat colleagues, 
``Folks, it is not your money.''
  Mr. Speaker, if people want to send their kids with their resources 
to private or parochial schools, they should be able to through this 
tax-free account. This is critical to diversity in education, and it is 
critical to restoring the American dream. I realize this provision was 
originally in our tax bill and it was stripped out because the 
President threatened to veto the entire tax bill if this was in the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, today I want to say to the President, Go ahead, make our 
day. Veto this bill if you think it is bad for families to use their 
own resources to put their kids through school.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to know what happened to the idea that 
this country invests in education. Why are we now asking parents and 
grandparents to spend more money on the education of their children? I 
think they already pay enough in taxes. The problem is that this body 
does not want to spend those taxes wisely. Instead of asking people to 
spend more money, why not look at the way we spend money?
  This body spends, for every 7 cents it spends on education, it puts 
52 cents to the Pentagon. So if we took $200,000 and invested in every 
elementary and secondary school in this country $200,000, we would come 
to a total of $26 billion.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, guess what? This Congress gave $26 billion to pay 
for nine more B-2 bombers that the Pentagon did not even ask for. So it 
is not a question of not being able to pay for education. We should 
invest in education. It is a national security issue. What it is a 
question of is are we going to spend the money that these American 
taxpayers send to the Congress wisely or are we going to waste it and 
then have to come to them and say now it is time they divvy up some of 
their own money to pay for education. It is a disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got to invest wisely. Every tax dollar should go 
to real national security: our children; their education. That is where 
we should be putting our money and we should not be asking through a 
gimmick in the Tax Code to make these parents pay for more money to the 
education of their children. It is a bad idea. We should vote this 
down, and we should vote for education every time we can and invest 
more money in education and less money in additional B-2 bombers that 
nobody needs, even the Pentagon does not want. Let us invest in 
America. Let us invest in America's children.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kentucky [Mrs. Northup].
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to my colleagues as a mother to 
support this bill. I think that we have demonstrated our commitment to 
education over many, many years of contributions, both State and local 
and Federal.

                              {time}  1315

  In fact, we have 729 programs that contribute to making educational 
systems in this country work better, to make sure that each child, 
every child has an opportunity for a good education. I think it is sort 
of amazing that the people that oppose this bill assume that every 
parent will make the choice to take their child out of public school 
and put them in a nonpublic school. I assume that many of our public 
schools are, in fact, great schools and that these parents, that many 
parents want to keep their child in public school. If they are not, we 
have got a much huger problem than what we do about these $2,500 school 
savings accounts. The reality is, there is not anything we can do at 
this level. There is not any check we can write at this level that 
helps each 6-year-old and each 7-year-old, each 10-year-old and each 
18-year-old be successful.
  Each one of my six children took unique needs, unique intervention to 
help them go from the beginning years of school to successfully 
complete school. Some of them had a terrible time with math and they 
needed tutoring. Some of my children needed special help in other 
areas. I do have special needs children. I have adopted children with 
diagnosed special needs and I have biological children that are 
dyslexic and have been diagnosed every step of the way. There is not 
any education program, private or public, that has met my children's 
needs.
  I had to find the resources to provide tutoring, to provide special 
summer schools, to provide special opportunities for those children to 
be successful. Thank goodness my husband and I could find those 
resources. Some of those I found by going back to work myself, by 
making quilts and selling them to provide for those services.
  This gives those parents these opportunities.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin], coauthor of the restructuring of the IRS bill 
that we are trying to protect the funding.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to be opposed to the legislation 
before us. It will benefit just a few people, those who have wealth. It 
has very limited benefits. It diverts funds that otherwise could be 
available to improve education in our country.
  Let me just mention one fundamental problem with this bill that I 
hope we all would see. That is, how in the world will the IRS ever be 
able to administer this bill? Look at the definition that is included 
for which the money in this account can be used in order to get tax 
preference.
  It can be used for tuition, fees, tutoring, special needs services, 
books, supplies, computer equipment, including related software and 
services, that is going to be an easy one for the IRS to figure out, 
what software is educationally related, and other equipment. 
Transportation, does that include a car that one can buy for their 
child? Supplementary expenses required for enrollment or attendance, 
does that include peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for nutrition 
services? How will the IRS ever be able to administer this program 
without being completely intrusive into the lives of the taxpayers of 
this country?
  This bill cannot be enforced. Rather than being an A plus account, 
these are really A slush accounts. I would urge my colleagues to reject 
the notion.
  The good news is that this bill is not going to become law. It is not 
going to pass the other body and be signed by the President. We do have 
an opportunity today to do something for education that we can really 
help; that is, support the Rangel substitute. Then we can build upon 
the budget agreement that we reached this year and we can really put 
more money into education.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn], another respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me this time.
  I would like to respond to the comments of gentlewoman from Oregon. 
This Nation's value is education. We have worked to support the public 
education system. The problem with the public education system right 
now is that it is not doing the job. Every parent wants to give the 
best education possible to his or her children. That is why some 
parents are saying they are willing to pay in effect double, if they 
decide voluntarily to take part in this program where we set aside 
money that can go into an education savings accounts to purchase the 
best education possible for their child, K

[[Page H9061]]

through 12. They also continue to pay all the expenses of public 
education.
  I know that this happens because I went through it when I was a young 
mother, divorced, single parent, two children, 6 and 8, determined that 
I preferred to send my children to a private school, really appreciated 
the fact that choice was involved, but could not pay for 
transportation. So I was in that kind of box of having to get my child 
to school at the same time that I started a job. I know what the 
feeling is in the pit of your stomach when you are late to work because 
you want to make sure your kids are well-protected on the school 
ground.
  What I like about this bill is that a parent who takes the choice of 
school into his or her hands can say, I am going to start at age zero 
with my child and every year save up to $2,500 in an account just in 
case of emergency. In my case, my child had a specific language 
disability. My child needed training every single day, five days a week 
for 6 years at $17 an hour. That is a pretty heavy hit these days where 
working parents have to be in jobs all day just to make the bottom line 
work out.
  So I think this is a great program. I admire those parents who are 
willing to continue to make the best education their top value. 
Americans of all stripes are alike in many ways. I believe that is why 
many Democrats have come over to us and said we want to support this 
legislation.
  Let me just tell my colleagues a number on this legislation we have 
discovered, that if a parent puts money into this account from the time 
his child is born, by the time that child gets to high school, there 
can be a total, it is just a $2,000, say 7\1/2\ percent interest, 
$46,000 in that account plus another additional $6,000 that comes 
because one does not have to pay tax on the interest of the account.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great opportunity. It recognizes that 
our principal challenge, educationally, is no longer college, but to 
raise the standards of our grade school and our high school students. 
What are our choices? Our choices are do nothing and get the product 
that we have gotten. It is not good enough to prepare our youngsters 
for a global economy or we can act today by passing this bill and 
helping parents obtain the tools that are needed to ensure that their 
child, every single one of them gets the best possible education from 
kindergarten to college.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge], an educator as well as a legislator.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill and to 
this latest attack on our public schools and, yes, on our children, 
their parents, and their communities. This legislation is the wrong 
approach to improving education for the 1.2 million children in the 
North Carolina public schools and the more than 45 million children all 
across this great Nation.
  As the first member of my family to graduate from college, I am 
grateful to the public schools of North Carolina for the opportunity I 
had to get an education. They did a tremendous job for our three 
children. I know firsthand that public education holds the key to the 
American dream.
  As a former superintendent elected for two terms, 8 years in North 
Carolina, I know what it takes to improve the public schools and to 
give our children the opportunity to make the very best of their God-
given ability. This bill is the latest attempt to use the precious 
taxpayer resources that we have to subsidize private schools. It will 
take precious resources that we need to strengthen our schools and put 
it into the pockets of the wealthiest people to send them to private 
schools. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the original 
version of this bill would have cost the U.S. Treasury over $5 billion 
over the next 10 years.
  That money would have been better spent helping States and localities 
rebuild crumbling schools, constructing new schools to relieve 
overcrowding. In fact, the President proposed a plan to do just that, 
but the proponents of this bill stripped it out of the original budget 
bill that passed this body earlier this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I sought this office because I could not stand by and 
watch Congress launch attack after attack on our Nation's public 
schools. I saw that 2 years ago when this body stood up and said, we 
are going to abolish the Department of Education, we are going to do 
away with the school lunch programs and we are going to eliminate 
student loans. A member of the majority party just last week even, last 
month, compared our public schools, and I quote, to the Communist 
legacy. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to scapegoat our 
public schools once again.
  Mr. Speaker, abandoning our public schools will not improve public 
education in this country. This bill is a cowardly act of surrender. 
Vote against this latest attack and vote for the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman because he obviously has not read the bill.
  The bill will provide assistance to families with children in public 
schools that is so badly needed today and public school teachers have 
come to me and begged for this because they say tutors are needed to 
help with the education of children in public schools. Seventy-five 
percent of the resources that this bill provides will go to families 
with children in public schools. Unfortunately, there is a group out 
there that does not want families to have any help for children who go 
into private schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
Mrs. Linda Smith.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for bringing this bill to the floor.
  I have listened to the debate here and think that sometimes you just 
have to go back to the original bill to remember what it is because we 
lose track in the debate. The education savings account for public and 
private schools allows parents and grandparents like me to open an 
account for each of my grandchild's education that can be used only, 
only the interest, the principal I still pay taxes on, but the interest 
can be used for a child's education needs while they are in school, for 
private school, just the interest, if their parents should choose, and 
from kindergarten through college. The $2,500 a year that I would put 
in each of the children's accounts as a grandparent, allowed under this 
bill, can be put in until they are 18 years old.
  If I take the money out that is now being used in our economy because 
savings is good for our economy, I have to pay a penalty on that. There 
is a great incentive for me to save for my grandchildren's education, 
not as great an incentive as an IRA where you can deduct the base 
$2,500 from your taxes, but a great incentive because I can save 
interest free for my grandchildren. As long as they spend the interest 
on college education, no one pays tax on the interest.
  This is not an attack on anything. It is a way of families getting 
involved in their kids' education. The great part about it is we know 
by all research families involved in their education gives the best 
education for children. Moms and grandmas making the choices gives the 
child the most personal education.
  I also wanted to say that as a grandma, I look at what is ahead for 
my grandkids. I do not want them to have to choose a public opportunity 
only. They might want to choose a private college. But if they do 
choose a public college, I would like to have them have options.
  With this, I want to encourage Members to look back at the bill and 
realize, this is a very good step toward reform and grandparents in 
America will like it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the 
gentlewoman really did explain this bill in a very accurate way, in 
that I just wish I could better understand that if one puts the money 
in an account and one can spend the interest on that account and one 
does it for their child and their grandchild and the bill is going to 
sunset in 5 years, my God, how much interest will ever be there for 
them to spend?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for

[[Page H9062]]

yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this legislation for 
three reasons: distribution, accountability, and fairness.
  First of all, distribution. The Department of the U.S. Treasury has 
said, by analysis, that 70 percent of the benefits go to 20 percent, 
the highest 20 percent, of Americans. Twenty percent of the benefits go 
to the highest 20 percent of Americans making money in this country. 
Now, that is one reason.
  Second, fairness. How many people making $25,000 a year, with their 
children in public schools, are going to be able to save $2,500 a year 
and benefit from this? Good question. Maybe not many.
  But third, I think, Mr. Speaker, the main reason here is 
accountability. Now, I just voted for three IRA's in the tax relief 
bill that we passed for Americans, and I was proud to do it: An 
education IRA, a Roth IRA, and expansion of the existing IRA.
  The education IRA can go for college tuition. We know that; the IRS 
knows that. This particular IRA can go for any of the following things: 
computers, books, supplies, equipment, transportation, and 
supplementary expenses. So if we want to buy measuring cups to teach 
our children at home about science, is that a tax writeoff?
  Should the IRS come in and audit that? Is that what the Republicans 
are saying? Is this the Auto Relief Act of 1997? What about buying our 
children a car? What about putting gasoline in the car? What about 
driving to and from school but also going to work?
  Now, do we want the IRS to look at those things? Are all those 
expenses or are they not? Should the IRS stay completely out of this or 
should they be nosing into every one of these situations?
  So from a position of accountability, we can buy software, we can 
have services, I understand we can pay one child to tutor another of 
our children under this act. Let us have some accountability, folks.
  If we are going to fix the IRS, as we have decided this week, let us 
fix it for everybody. We will do it in a bipartisan way, but with 
public education. What this act does is let us just fix it primarily 
for people making over $70,000 a year for them to drive their kids back 
and forth to school and buy some computers and some measuring cups.
  Let us fix public education for everybody. Let us fix the IRS for 
everybody.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Boehner], the distinguished chairman of the Republican conference.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa for yielding 
me this time.
  My colleagues, Republicans here in the House, have begun a bold 
campaign to strengthen and reform our Nation's education system. We are 
attempting to send more dollars directly to the classrooms, trying to 
return control of education to parents, teachers, and local 
communities, and giving working class parents and poor parents new 
educational choices.
  I think that is exactly what the Education Savings Act for Public and 
Private Schools does. The bill that we have today simply extends the 
popular and successful college education savings accounts to parents 
with kids in kindergarten through grade 12.
  All over the country, and certainly in my district, there are lower 
and middle-income families who struggle every day to make ends meet. 
These are exactly the type of families that these accounts are intended 
to help. The rich, as those on the other side of the aisle like to talk 
about, do not have to save to pay for a tutor if their kids are not 
doing well in math or reading. The rich, as they describe them, do not 
have to save to buy a new computer. They do not have to save in order 
to pay for SAT prep classes or summer education camps. These things are 
already available to them because they have the cash to do it.
  What we are trying to do is to help lower middle income and poor 
folks in America save the money that they can to help their children 
get a better education. Now, what is wrong with allowing American 
parents to keep more of what they earn so that they can help their 
children get the educational aids they need that will help them have a 
shot at the American dream? That is what we are trying to do today.
  We provide Pell grants for students in college. Private college, 
public college, it makes no difference. We provide student loans for 
college. Private, public, it makes no difference. But as soon as we try 
to do something to give parents greater control over the education of 
their children that are in grades 12 and under, there is a big stone 
wall. That is because the education bureaucracy in America rises up and 
says no, we are in charge of that.
  This bill today gives parents more choices.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just answer the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Boehner]. Federal control, most of the money for secondary and 
elementary education that is appropriated here goes for special 
education and compensatory education that are under the control of 
local school districts. So that is an effort really to debate by 
demonization to say that we are trying to defend a Federal bureaucracy 
when most of the money that is appropriated goes to school districts.
  Second, the gentleman from Ohio and others say that their bill is an 
effort to help the working class. Look at the data. According to the 
Treasury Department analysis, under this bill a family with income 
$33,000 to $55,000 would get $7 a year help; a family $55,000 to 
$93,000, $32; and a family $93,000 and up would get $96, three times 
the family with half the income and 12 times a family with three to 
five times the income.
  Now, if the money is already available to the wealthy family, why are 
we giving them a tax break?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have a copy of this? We 
would love to see this analysis.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to, and 
I would also tell the gentleman from Iowa that we distributed, in the 
Committee on Ways and Means, a study by the Federal Reserve that 
indicated that families $30,000 to $40,000 had nonretirement investment 
assets of $2,500. In other words, they did not have as much money, most 
of them, as the amount of money that could be put in by wealthier 
families.
  The wealthy family has that income available and those assets. And a 
family $40,000 to $50,000 has nonretirement investment assets, those 
under 35, of only $3,400. So we are saying put $2,500 a year in. Who 
can do that if they have assets of only $3,400 nonretirement assets?
  Now, this is an effort by the majority, in essence, to cover their 
weak flank: education. But they are covering it by helping wealthy 
families and hurting public education. That is a bad idea. The Rangel 
idea is a much better one. Let us vote for it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  The previous speaker said something about accountability and how we 
must have accountability in this matter. Really, accountability in this 
context, I think, more equates to control. On this side what we are 
talking about is choice, which equates to freedom. And that is the 
difference in this debate.
  The difference is whether control is going to remain with a 
bureaucracy, whether it is in Washington or in a county back home. The 
question is who controls education: Is it a bureaucracy, an education 
bureaucracy, or is it parents? So accountability on this side really 
equates into control. Choice on this side equates into freedom.
  But there is something that comes with this freedom. The freedom we 
are after on this side is the opportunity for parents to choose where 
to send their kids to school. That is our ultimate objective, or at 
least my ultimate objective: to allow every parent in America to choose 
where to send their child to school among all options available to 
them.
  Now, I realize that the education establishment does not like that, 
because

[[Page H9063]]

they do not want to give up that control. But consider what they are 
after: The education folks are always trying to create little programs 
at the Department of Education that are supposedly going to save the 
day, but we all know they will fall short.
  I think we are all coming to the conclusion, or I hope we are, that 
really the only way to educate kids is for parents to be involved. And 
the way for parents to be involved is to vest them with decisionmaking. 
Do not tell them by some formula worked out or map worked out in some 
bureaucrat's office somewhere where they are going to send their kids 
to school. Give them choice.
  Give them the opportunity to go to, say, Poly Williams School, where 
they have to sign a contract in order to have their kids there, and 
then what we will have is parental involvement because they are 
exercising their free choice. They are buying into the school. They are 
participating in Johnny's education, and Johnny is going to get 
educated that way.
  That is the change we need to bring, and I wholeheartedly support 
this small step toward that.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Green].
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  Listening to the debate earlier, we all support education and all the 
ways we can do it, and the opportunity to help families have their 
children to be prepared for tomorrow, but it is frustrating, as a 
Member of the House, that last week the solution to the education 
problems was vouchers for the District of Columbia and this week it is 
for an educational IRA that will only be for a specific higher income.
  And those numbers that the members of the Committee on Ways and Means 
have been talking about are reflected in a graph that I have here that 
shows my district, whose medium income is about $22,000, that is about 
the average for the country, in some cases, I believe, but it shows if 
an individual makes $33,000 to $55,000 their only tax break will be $7. 
But today we are having a special that says, OK, we are going to solve 
education by giving $7 back to a family with an income of $33,000 to 
$55,000.
  I wish we had quick fixes to education problems, but we do not. It 
takes hard work. And there are millions of parents, teachers, and even 
school administrators who care and love those children and that are not 
looking for quick-fix gimmicks like vouchers or even this IRA.
  America has always had a commitment to education, whether it be in 
private, parochial or in home school, or particularly where 90 percent 
of the students go, which is public education. This bill allows parents 
to set up a tax-free IRA of $2,500 per year, per child. What this 
proposes is that it will only let the wealthiest families participate 
and take advantage of it. Ninety percent of the students attend public 
education, yet those parents of poorer incomes or moderate incomes, 
under the numbers I see from the Committee on Ways and Means, they have 
to buy school uniforms and computers, but they cannot take advantage of 
this.
  This is not the solution for our educational problems. It takes hard 
work. Let us get away from some of the gimmicks and get back to really 
providing quality education. Quality education in public education is 
our Nation's gift for our children.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], who was former chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham] is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Charlie 
Rangel. He is speaking to the issues. He is not using the Carl Marx 
class warfare, but he is really speaking to the issues, and that is 
refreshing, and I want to thank the gentleman for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak as a teacher and a coach for many years. I have 
my entire family either as coaches, teachers, or principals in public 
school. Last weekend we attended the public school teacher awards for 
outstanding teachers, and I want to tell my colleagues, parents lauded 
those teachers, students lauded those teachers, and I agree that public 
education is the key to the future of America. I agree.
  I would say another step is parental involvement. And community 
involvement is another very important key. I do not want to take away 
from that.

                              {time}  1345

  My passions are national security and education. But how do we get 
the maximum amount of dollars to do that? That is what the issue is. I 
thank the gentleman for speaking to that.
  One of the things we said was charter schools. The unions opposed 
that when it first came out, but it has proven well. We are trying to 
give the key to the local, to the parent, to the teachers and I would 
say even the families, because a grandparent, a person that earns 
$25,000 a year or less, if they want to save for their children's 
education and we do not tax that, that is good, I would say to my 
friend. We ought to take away that tax burden for those folks. I would 
say that the maximum amount of dollars my friend sponsored, how do we 
get, and State bureaucracy is just as bad as Federal bureaucracy. The 
Federal bureaucracy with the 760 programs, we only get about 48 cents 
out of every dollar to the classroom, out of Federal dollars. Why? 
Because of the bureaucracy and the paperwork. The State is just as bad. 
In some areas in our society, we get as little as 23 cents. Let us work 
for the State, the Federal, and the private and do it and let us 
support this bill and support the choice.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that gives one 
nickel to the teachers, one nickel to the schools, one nickel to 
equipment. It gives the parent, whether the kid is in private or public 
school, that has enough money to put in the bank an opportunity to use 
the interest on the money.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Would the gentleman say that it is wrong for a low-
income parent that does want to set aside, that we ought to tax that 
individual?
  Mr. RANGEL. I believe it is good for all parents. It has nothing to 
do with education.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez].
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Rangel 
substitute to H.R. 2646, the Education Savings Act for Public and 
Private Schools. The Coverdell legislation is a Federal subsidy of 
private school education. Ninety percent of all the children in America 
go to public schools. The numbers are increasing every day. Let that be 
the focus of our education agenda, how to improve America's public 
education system.
  Our schools are trying to fix their problems. For example, the 
majority of kindergarten through 12th grade schools in my Congressional 
district are overcrowded. They are continuing to succeed despite the 
difficult circumstances. Should we not give incentives to local school 
districts to modernize, to renovate their schools, to build new 
classrooms rather than give incentives to parents to take their kids 
out of the public school system?
  That is why I am encouraging my colleagues to vote for the Rangel 
substitute. Let us do what is right for America's children. Let us make 
sure that a quality education is available to every student, regardless 
of their family income. Please vote for the substitute.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Only in 
Washington, DC, would money that is taxed on parents that comes to 
Washington and we say we want to go back to parents be called a Federal 
subsidy. Think about that. Only in Washington, DC, would somebody have 
the nerve to say money we take from you in taxes and give back to you 
in tax relief is a Federal

[[Page H9064]]

subsidy. That blows my mind. I think that in and of itself is the 
difference in this debate here today, who you trust, parents or the 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly 
support the bill that is before us. It was one of my biggest 
disappointments that the budget negotiators gave in to the President 
and the liberal Democrats to restrict how parents and families can 
spend their own savings accounts on education.
  I think it is un-American. The concept of an educational IRA makes so 
much sense. It is after-tax dollars we allow them to put away for their 
own families. It is an act to encourage Americans to plan and save for 
their own children's education, making them less dependent on 
government help.
  What are my colleagues afraid of? That is good public policy. It is 
about freedom, parents and families making choices, parents and 
families planning for their own children's future. What is the 
difference between grade 13 and grade 11 and 12? Well, in 13 you can 
choose. In grade 11 and 12, you have no choices because the government 
knows better.
  Let us look at Johnny and Suzie. Suzie needs a strong base because 
she has chosen a tough college program. Her parents, her educators 
realize that she may not be able to get into the program she wants. So 
she may choose a different public school for her senior year or she may 
choose a private school so she can get the preparation for the 
education she has chosen. Or Johnny, who just needs some help in 11th 
or 12th grade so he can go to college. He is right on the borderline of 
what colleges will accept, the colleges he wants. What is wrong with 
Johnny's and Suzie's parents having a right to choose?
  We heard today, how can we ask families to invest in the children's 
education? We are not asking them. We are giving them the opportunity. 
There are those who said all the money is going to go to the rich. They 
assume that working Americans do not care about their children's 
future. Working Americans will save quicker than anybody, because they 
care about their children. Many working Americans do not have a college 
education, but they want their children to and they will sacrifice, and 
we should give them that chance. We should give parents and families 
the right to choose.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a representative of a rural 
district and as a deficit hawk to express my strong opposition to this 
legislation. It is not well thought out. For many of us, avoiding 
backloaded tax cuts that will cause the deficit to increase in the next 
century was one of the most important principles of the budget 
agreement.
  This bill creates exactly the type of backloaded tax cut that 
fiscally responsible Members in both parties fought to keep out of the 
budget agreement. The bill reported by the committee was paid for in 
the 5-year budget window by an offset that produces large one-time 
savings in the early years. The savings drop off after the second year 
and the revenue loss continues to grow every year. As a result, the 
bill will increase the deficit beginning in the year 2000.
  This last-minute transparent sunsetting gimmick added at the 
Committee on Rules does not solve the problem. Many of the proponents 
of this legislation ridiculed the President earlier this year for his 
budget proposal, and I agreed with your criticism. How is this 
different? It is not. No one believed that tax cuts proposed by the 
President would be sunsetted after 4 years, and I do not think anyone 
honestly believes that Congress will allow this provision to sunset 
after families have been contributing to an education savings account 
for several years.
  Paying for legislation during the budget window while ignoring 
growing out-year costs is exactly the type of budget gimmick that 
helped produce the record deficits in the past, and returning to 
gimmicks to get around the budget rules is a dangerous step down the 
slippery slope of unraveling the budget agreement and returning to 
uncontrolled deficits.
  If we are serious about helping our children, our first priority must 
be to remain committed to reaching a balanced budget and stop piling 
debt on future generations.
  I also oppose this legislation as a Member representing a rural 
district with 109 school districts and as a former schoolteacher in a 
rural school. School choice may sound good in theory, but it does not 
make sense in the real world of rural America without further eroding 
the fragile economies in rural communities. This legislation is bad 
fiscal policy and even worse education policy.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Education 
Savings Act for Public and Private Schools. This bill is not just about 
education. It is about trust and equity. If it is OK to offer a tax 
break to parents who want to send their children to college, then 
should we not offer that same advantage to parents who want their 
children to have a quality elementary and secondary education?
  This bill does not take money away from public education. So why are 
opponents so afraid of this bill? Maybe they are afraid that parental 
empowerment and involvement in their children's education will prove 
more effective than empowering education bureaucrats in Washington, DC. 
To me, this is a simple issue. Who are you going to side with today, 
bureaucrats or parents?
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2646 and let America's parents 
know that Congress trusts them to care for their children's education.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
the Rangel substitute. I support the Rangel substitute because the 
original bill is nothing more than another backdoor attempt to try and 
dismantle public education. I have listened to people talk about 
helping those with low income. My statistics suggest that low-income 
people in my community, who earn less than $40,000 a year, do not have 
any discretionary money to invest in a tax plan. They do not have any 
additional money that they can use for education.
  I submit that public education is the only real safeguard that exists 
in this country for the preservation of democracy. Anything less than 
that, Mr. Speaker, is going against the grain, it is going against the 
wishes of the American people, it is going against the needs of those 
in middle America. I urge strong support for the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, for those who say that we are talking about bureaucracy, 
the amendment would indicate that all we are trying to do is improve 
the public school system in the areas that it is failing, if they can 
cooperate with the private sector to improve the curriculum and make 
the students more productive, to give them the skills to work with. No, 
we do not give away money, interest-free money to those that have this 
disposable income. We believe the systems that are not working should 
be reinforced, make them productive, make them effective and get more 
people out of the jails and into the workplace.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, let me answer some of the critics who have been saying 
that public education is not something that we support. Not only am I a 
product of public education, which Members can draw their own 
conclusions about, the good or the bad about public education just from 
me standing here. I happen to think it was pretty good, my kids are in 
public education. I support public education.
  In fact, I just spent this last week of our recess going around 
talking to parents, talking to teachers, talking to students and 
administrators about the importance of public education. But

[[Page H9065]]

they also know that there is extra, that education now between K 
through 12 is not enough. We did something in the balanced budget plan 
called the HOPE scholarship. It is a start. What we want to do is we 
want to expand that, because we know particularly for people who have 
children with special needs that there is always extra. There is a 
little extra in the summer, there is a little extra after the grades 
are all over and the schoolhouse closes after they have graduated, we 
hope. There is extra that they are going to need.
  I understand that there are some who say that because you are poor, 
you probably will not want to participate. A, that is wrong, because 
people do care about their kids. And, B, even if they are able to 
participate a little, is that not better than nothing?
  I understand there is a Treasury study out there that says that it 
only means $10 for somebody. $10? $10 is something. It is a start. 
Maybe that is not enough. Maybe we ought to go further. Let us talk 
about going further, but let us not stop just because that is not 
enough for one particular family. Let us give the incentive to families 
so that they can meet those challenges. And let us also do it in a way 
that recognizes that education is a lifelong process.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I 
oppose the Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools--H.R. 
2646--despite having been an original cosponsor of the Parents and 
Student Savings Account Act--PLUS A+--bill and having been quite active 
in seeking support for the original bill. I remain a strong supporter 
of education IRA's, which are a good first step toward restoring 
parental control of education by ensuring parents can devote more of 
their resources to their children's education. However, this bill also 
raises taxes on businesses and I cannot vote for a bill that raises 
taxes, no matter what other salutary provisions are in the legislation.
  I certainly support the provisions allowing parents to contribute up 
to $2,500 a year to education savings accounts without having to pay 
taxes on the interest earned by that account. This provision expands 
parental control of education, the key to true education reform as well 
as one of the hallmarks of a free society. Today the right of parents 
to educate their children as they see fit is increasingly eroded by the 
excessive tax burden imposed on America's families by Congress. 
Congress then rubs salt in the wounds of America's hardworking, 
taxpaying parents by using their tax dollars to fund an 
unconstitutional education bureaucracy that all too often uses its 
illegitimate authority over education to undermine the values of these 
same parents.
  In fact, one of my objections to this bill is that it does not go 
nearly far enough in returning education authority to the parents. This 
is largely because the deposit to an education IRA must consist of 
after-tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, education IRA's would be so much more 
beneficial if parents could make their deposits with pretax dollars. 
Furthermore, allowing contributions to be made from pretax dollars 
would provide a greater incentive for citizens to contribute to 
education IRA's for other underprivileged children.
  Furthermore, education IRA's are not the most effective means of 
returning education resources to the American people. A much more 
effective way of promoting parental choice in education is through 
education tax credits, such as those contained in H.R. 1816, the Family 
Education Freedom Act, which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for 
elementary and secondary expenses incurred in educating a child at 
private, parochial, or home schools. Tax credits allow parents to get 
back the money they spent on education, in fact, large tax credits will 
remove large numbers of families from the tax roles.
  I would still support this bill as a good first--albeit small--step 
toward restoring parental control of education if it did not offset the 
so-called cost to Government--revenue loss--by alterning the rules by 
which businesses are taxed on employee vacation benefits. While I 
support efforts to ensure that tax cuts do not increase the budget 
deficit, the offset should come from cuts in wasteful, unconstitutional 
Government programs, such as foreign aid and corporate welfare. 
Congress should give serious consideration to cutting unconstitutional 
programs such as Goals 2000 which run roughshod over the rights of 
parents to control their children's education, as a means of offsetting 
the revenue loss to the Treasury from this bill. A less than 3-percent 
cut in the NEA budget would provide more funds than needed for this 
return of tax dollars to families who seek choice in their children's 
educational needs.
  Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have no moral nor scientific means by 
which to determine which Americans are most deserving of tax cuts. Yet, 
this is precisely what Congress does when it raises taxes on some 
Americans to offset tax cuts for others. Rather than selecting some 
arbitrary means of choosing which Americans are more deserving of tax 
cuts, Congress should cut taxes for all Americans.
  Moreover, becasue we have no practical way of knowing how many 
Americans will take advantage of the education IRA's relative to those 
who will have their taxes raised by the offset in this bill, it is 
quite possible that H.R. 2646 is actually a backdoor tax increase. In 
fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this 
legislation will increase revenues to the Treasury by $1.8 billion over 
the next 2 years.
  It is a well-established fact that any increase in taxes on small 
businesses discourages job creation and, thus, increases unemployment. 
It is hard too see how discouraging job creation by raising taxes is 
consistent with the stated goal of H.R. 2646--helping America's 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that is this type of legislation--a 
backdoor tax increase masquerading as a tax cut--that is, in part, 
responsible for the widespread and ever growing disgust with this body.
  In conclusion, although the Education Savings Act for Public and 
Private Schools does take a small step toward restoring parental 
control of education, it also raises job-destroying taxes on business. 
Therefore, I cannot in good conscience support this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and instead support 
legislation that returns education resources to American parents by 
returning to them moneys saved by deep cuts in the Federal bureaucracy, 
nor by raising taxes on other Americans.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, we face a crisis in American education today. 
Forty percent of all 10 year olds can't meet basic literacy standards. 
United States eighth-graders recently placed 28th in the world in math 
and science skills. Two thousand acts of violence take place in schools 
each day, and almost a third of today's college freshmen require some 
remedial instructions. The education initiatives Republicans are 
bringing to the House floor in the next few days are an excellent start 
toward solutions of these problems.
  Education savings accounts [ESA's] give middle- and low-income 
parents new education choices--public and private--to educate their 
children in safe and nurturing environments. Families or individuals 
earning less than $95,000 a year would be eligible to contribute up to 
$2,500 annually into an account for a child's educational needs while 
at public, private, religious or home schools--from kindergarten 
through college. The buildup of the interest within that account is tax 
free and the savings from that account can be used for tuition, 
tutoring, transportation, equipment, services for kids with special 
needs, home computers, uniforms, books and supplies, and SAT 
preparation or enrollment expenses related to sending a child to a 
public school in a neighborhood district.
  It has been estimated that around 14.3 million families--about 10.8 
million of which are families whose children attend public school--
would benefit from these accounts by 2002. Seventy percent of the tax 
savings from these accounts would go to families whose income is less 
than $75,000 a year. Families can make no more important investment 
than the investment in their child's education.
  Some people would argue that ESA's would siphon off funds needed for 
public school education. In fact, public education would benefit from 
Americans' being encouraged to invest in their neighborhood schools. 
Faced with rising costs, many public schools are forced to operate in 
unsafe buildings or with too few textbooks. The funds these ESA's 
provide would help improve the quality of public school education by 
freeing tax dollars for basic instruction, supplies, and repairs. Just 
investing $2,500 a year from a child's birth until he or she enters the 
first grade would yield nearly $17,883 for that child's elementary 
education. Research has shown that engaging parents in their children's 
education improves the academic performance of those children, and also 
gives parents a stake in the success of their local schools.
  The Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act just passed the House 
this week. This bill allows Department of Education direct loans to be 
consolidated with Federal family education loans [FFEL] until September 
30, 1998; allows students to consolidate loans with private-sector 
loans; and requires consolidated FFEL and direct loans to carry the 
same interest rate of a consolidated direct loan. In addition, the bill 
stipulates that HOPE scholarships--the recently created $1,500 tax 
credits for families for the first 2 years of college established by 
the Taxpayer Relief Act--will not reduce the financial aid award a 
student receives. The Department of Education has been unable to 
effectively operate their direct student loan program since it was 
created in 1993 and America's students should not have to pay for this 
administration's shortcomings.
  If we truly want to help parents, teachers, and local officials 
strengthen and reform our Nation's education system, we must make

[[Page H9066]]

sure Federal education dollars reach the classroom. This may sound 
simple enough, but currently $5.4 billion of the $15.4 billion spent by 
the U.S. Department of Education on elementary and secondary education 
programs never reaches the all-important classroom and, instead, is 
lost to a frightening sea of bureaucracy. Roughly 65 percent of 
Department of Education elementary and secondary dollars actually reach 
the classrooms. I urge all of my colleagues to take the important first 
step of making sure that taxpayer education dollars get where they are 
supposed to be going--to the children and teachers in the classroom.
  We cannot continue to allow our education system to entrap young 
students and permit them to fall further behind. We must act now and 
take these key first steps to bringing about a brighter future for our 
children.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to express my 
opposition to the Education Savings Act for Public Private Schools 
principally for two reasons. First, balancing our Federal budget should 
be our highest priority. We should not pass any bills, whether they 
increase spending or cut taxes, without considering their impact on our 
need to balance the budget. This bill costs approximately $5 billion 
during the next 5 years of its implementation and its cost thereafter 
is unclear and potentially much, much higher. There is no decrease in 
spending called for by the bill to offset its cost. As a result, it 
will hamper, perhaps significantly, our efforts to balance the budget.
  Second, while we should support the efforts of parents to educate 
their children as best as possible and to fully participate in that 
process, we should not give preference to private schools over public 
schools. Because this bill appears to do so, I also oppose it for that 
reason.
  Finally, I want to point out that the child tax credit and education 
IRA created in the recent Taxpayers Relief Act and the Balanced Budget 
Act respectively, both of which I supported, are far superior to this 
bill in providing parent financial support for the education of their 
children. Furthermore, the cost of each of these bills is paid for 
within the context of moving us much closer to balancing the federal 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against the Education Savings Act for Public and Private 
Schools.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2646, 
legislation to provide American families with the opportunity to save 
for their childrens' education. I commend the Speaker and our committee 
chairman, Bill Archer, for their leadership on this issue.
  As a former university professor and school headmaster, I take great 
interest in efforts to improve the education of our children. The bill 
before the House today provides taxpayers with new education IRA 
accounts which will allow annual after tax contributions of up to 
$2,500 to be saved for not only college expenses, but for expenses 
incurred from kindergarten through high school. When used for education 
purposes, the interest earned in these accounts will be free from 
additional taxation. These education dollars will belong to the 
taxpayer, not the Government, and children will have them available for 
their public, private or home schooling needs.
  The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, passed earlier this year by 
Congress, provided education IRA's, but limited their use to college 
expenses. In that bill, the Republican Congress had attempted to 
provide education IRA's for all levels of schooling. This broad IRA 
survived the House/Senate conference committee, where I supported it, 
as well as the negotiations with the Clinton administration. It was 
only after the tax deal was publicly announced that President Clinton 
quietly threatened to veto the whole tax cut package unless the 
kindergarten through high school use provisions were eliminated. The 
President is also threatening to veto this attempt to help parents 
educate their kids. As usual, the President is looking out for his 
campaign contributors, rather than our children the future of our 
country.
  I must address the rather specious claims of the opponents of this 
bill. While our liberal colleagues support education IRA's for 
colleges, they have lined up in opposition to expanding IRA use for all 
levels of our childrens' education. I have received letters in my 
office from teachers unions, school board associations, and the 
administration claiming that these IRA accounts will undermine public 
education in this country. These groups obviously misunderstand this 
bill. Parents are free to use these IRA accounts for their children, 
regardless of whether they attend public, private or home schools. In 
the case of public-schooled children, parents can, for example, use 
their IRA to provide a tutor for their child. If parents use the IRA 
money to send their child to a private school or to home school their 
children, they are not relying on a government handout--it is their own 
money. These IRA's are foreign to the liberal education hierarchy 
because it removes Washington as an obstacle to educating our kids.
  In recent years, public education in America has too often failed our 
kids. I do not intend to condemn the hard-working teachers, because 
they need help too. This failure is unfortunately, exemplified in the 
schools in our Nation's capital. No school system in America, public or 
private, spends more money per pupil than does Washington, DC. Yet the 
children in Washington's public schools rank nearly last in academic 
achievement in America. Taxpayers have poured billions of dollars into 
our schools and our children are seeing less and less return on this 
investment. Yet when we Republicans, and a brave Democrat or two, 
propose to allow parents more freedom and options to educate their 
children, the liberal education establishment alleges that we are 
attacking children. How much more failure in our schools will Americans 
tolerate before they take their schools back from the liberal education 
establishment? Make no mistake about it, opponents of this bill do not 
trust parents to make decisions about the education and the future of 
their own children.
  This bill will give parents an additional valuable tool to use in 
their childrens' education. Parents, not bureaucrats, will have the 
ability to decide what is best for the kids, and they can use their IRA 
accounts accordingly. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
2646 and I hope that the President will reconsider his threat to veto 
this bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, parents across America want greater control 
of their children's education and greater accountability from their 
children's schools. Parents must be able to send their children to 
safe, quality schools that reinforce the lessons of responsibility and 
respect that they try so hard to teach at home. The array of Republican 
initiatives that we are working to advance are designed to help kids, 
parents, teachers, and local officials strengthen and reform our 
Nation's education system--from kindergarten through college and 
vocational schools to mid-career job training.
  I am committed to providing every child in America with first-class 
learning opportunities in safe, secure schools where they can truly 
learn. Critical situations call for dramatic change. Maintaining the 
status quo which chooses bureaucrats over kids, parents, and teachers 
is immoral and will only keep students trapped in a failed system where 
they cannot learn. Our education reform initiatives will turn this 
around. The time to take action is now.
  Mr. Speaker, our agenda for the American learner is a serious attempt 
to bring commonsense reforms to a myriad of redundant and antiquated 
Federal education programs. We plan to send Federal education dollars 
to the classrooms, not to Washington bureaucrats; we intend to return 
control over education to mothers, fathers, and local communities; we 
want to strengthen our commitment to basic academics, and we want to 
give every child the same opportunity to thrive and succeed.
  At this time, I can only hope that our Democratic colleagues will 
reject the dictates of the big-money special interests and join us in 
our effort to give every child a chance at future success and the 
American dream. It's the least they deserve and I will work to provide 
our children with a top-quality education and the opportunity for a 
successful future.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, one of the most contentious battles looming 
before us today is the battle to save our children by improving 
education. Like other contentious issues that have come before the 
Congress such as abortion and the death penalty, very few people are 
ambivalent about their stand on this subject. One side levels charges 
of elitism while the other is denounced as bureaucrats. What is being 
overlooked in the debate, however, is what is ultimately best for our 
children. The system is clearly failing students when you hear 
statistics like 40 percent of all 10-year-olds can't meet basic 
literacy standards, U.S. eighth-graders placed 28th in the world in 
math and science skills, and almost a third of today's college freshmen 
require some remedial instruction. How did we let the state of 
education reach a crisis level?
  H.R. 2646, the Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools, 
will allow parents, grandparents, friends, scholarship sponsors, 
companies or charities to open an account for a child's educational 
needs while at public, private, religious or home schools from 
kindergarten through college. Savings from these accounts can be used 
for tuition, tutoring, transportation, books and supplies, and services 
for kids with special needs, among other things. This bill is about 
helping parents help their children. How can anyone be opposed to 
giving money to families for educational use rather than using that 
money to create more government bureaucracy?
  I am a product of the public schools in the district I am now honored 
to represent. I want the parents and children in my district to have 
access to the best education possible. As a lawmaker, I owe it to 
future generations. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2646.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). It is now in order to consider

[[Page H9067]]

the amendment printed in part 2 of House Report 105-336.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel:
       Strike sections 1 and 2 of the bill and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public School Improvement 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO EDUCATION ZONE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Increase in Volume Cap on Bonds.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 1397E(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to credit to holders of qualified zone academy 
     bonds) is amended by striking ``$400,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$4,000,000,000''.
       (b) Permitted Uses of Bond Proceeds To Include School 
     Construction.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1397E(d)(5) of 
     such Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) constructing, rehabilitating, or repairing the public 
     school facility in which the academy is established,''.
       Amend the title to read as follows: ``To amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to promote the construction and 
     rehabilitation of public schools by increasing the amount of 
     qualified zone academy bonds which may be issued.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members' support for my amendment, which 
merely is an expansion of existing law that was incorporated in the 
recent tax package, with the support of the leadership of the 
Democrats, the Republicans, as well as the President of the United 
States.

                              {time}  1400

  What it does is to allow those public school systems that are failing 
us in areas of extreme poverty to get their acts together by realizing 
that they have to do something better. And what they do better is to 
have to reach out to form partnerships, to form academies with the 
private sector leadership in these communities, and to sit down with 
the teachers and with the parents, the business people and the local 
officials, and to come up with a curriculum, not just one that they 
feel good about, not one that comes from the State capital, but one in 
which the private sector can say that these are the skills that we are 
going to need in this community if your kids are going to go to college 
or if your kids are going to get a job.
  So there is no special bank accounts. What it amounts to is it allows 
these communities to be able to go to the public market and to borrow 
the funds with interest-subsidized bonds so that they would be able to 
supplement the public budget by providing funds for scientific 
equipment, scientific books, things that would be approved by this 
partnership, to rehabilitate the buildings, to make the repairs, and to 
have the type of academies that excel in those communities that they 
are not doing well in.
  It just seems to me if one takes a look at some of these communities, 
one would find that the budgets to keep kids in jail far exceeds the 
budgets that keep kids in school. In the city of New York, we pay 
$84,000 a year to keep a kid in a detention center, and we are fighting 
now as to whether $7,000 is a sufficient amount of money to keep that 
same kid in school.
  All this is saying is that as we concentrate on the next century and 
having people with the intellect and the technology to keep America in 
the forefront, do not try to move forward and leave millions of people 
behind without the skills to work with.
  I encourage Members to consider this. It cannot be called partisan. 
It borrows from the same concepts of funding as our Republican 
majority. The concept has been supported, it is in existing law, and I 
just hope that you would believe that this is really a more effective 
way to improve the quality of education for those kids who do not have 
the option to go to private school, but have this as the only network, 
as I and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle], had when we were kids, 
and that was that public school system.
  We are not saying there is an attack on that system, we are saying 
that it is in a critical stage today, and we are asking Members in the 
Congress not to let that go, because for many of us, we never had the 
option to go to a private school.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start by commending the gentleman from New York 
for what I would have to suggest is a good idea, and an idea we need to 
consider in this House of Representatives, we need to consider in the 
Senate, or in the other body, we need to consider in Washington, as a 
way to try to empower State and local communities to deal with some 
very specific problems that I know the gentleman is well aware of.
  I just also became well aware of them in my own community of 
Waterloo, IA, where we also are faced with a number of problems 
involving infrastructure or brick and mortar as they call it, of 
schools that have deteriorated, and are forming partnerships within 
their own community. Even without your amendment, they have done this 
to come together to plan for the future, to figure out ways to share 
information and resources, and also build back the school system, 
because they, along with the gentleman and myself, agree that public 
education is an important foundation for a free society, and 
particularly one that has gotten us this far in our history.
  I would just have to say, however, that we have a finite pot of money 
that we hope to use as the offset, and yours is a substitute. If there 
was a way we could augment it after studying the way it would work, 
because one of the concerns I have is I think you target--it seems to 
target only low-income areas, I would be concerned that maybe we allow 
that to broaden out even a little further, because there are some areas 
that may not quite meet the definition of low income, yet are faced 
with some unique challenges. Maybe it is through recession, maybe it is 
on a periodic basis. But I do think your plan deserves study and merit.
  So I find it difficult to debate against it. We have talking points 
here, of course, and we can look and say, well, our plan supports 
savings; your plan supports borrowing. That is really not the point. 
The point is they are two separate problems.
  One part is we have parents that need to deal with immediate concerns 
of dealing with their children's education. You and I both know that 
means public education, but in many instances the choice is becoming 
more and more frequent, a private education, extra education in 
addition to public education. So we tried to meet that challenge 
through the Education Savings Act.
  What you are trying to accomplish is in a different, no less 
important, in my view, area of infrastructure for education.
  I think in this instance why we are opposing this is because we would 
like to move this plan. It has been part of our platform, we believe in 
it, we are going to move it, that is our intent, but in my opinion, and 
I am speaking for myself here, I believe we ought to take a closer look 
at your plan with regard to building up and giving empowerment to local 
communities, whether it is academies or zones of partnership, so that 
we can, in fact, infuse some support in a nontraditional way to our 
public education system.
  Some would rush in here and say let us appropriate dollars. Yours is 
unique. It says we have to have local control. I believe it says we 
have to have community involvement. It has to come from the bottom up. 
We are just there to help. I think that is a unique and very 
administrable plan.
  Unfortunately, with the pool of money available, I am going to push 
my idea, support your idea as something we need to look into, but 
believe that it needs to wait until another day, I say respectfully.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H9068]]

  Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank my friend, the gentleman, for his support, 
even though it is limited.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Lewis], a member of our committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague, my leader, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to this ill-
conceived plan. Across our Nation, public schools are in need of 
assistance. According to a recent GAO report, one out of every three 
public schools is in serious need of repair and construction work. Our 
public schools are crumbling. Our children need our help.
  The deterioration of our public schools should not be a partisan 
issue. The Department of Education did not cause the physical 
deterioration of our public schools, nor did Goals 2000, or Head Start. 
They are crumbling because of a lack of money, effort, and caring.
  Some of our public schools are crumbling in other ways. Students are 
not learning. Drugs and firearms have invaded our Nation's school 
yards.
  As a nation and as a people, we should be responding to this crisis 
by fixing and building our public schools. Public education is a great 
equalizer in our Nation. Nine out of every ten children in this country 
attend public schools. I attended public schools. I would bet that the 
majority of the Members of Congress came from some public school. We 
know that each and every child has a right to a good education in a 
safe environment at a public school.
  The bill before us would do nothing to improve our public schools. 
Instead, it would use the Federal Tax Code to undermine support for 
public education.
  This bill is a sneaky and slick proposal that would have two results: 
First, it would subsidize religious groups and religious schooling; 
second, it would continue Republican efforts to undermine our support 
for public education.
  Working families do not want their hard-earned tax dollars going to 
support private schools. A family making less than $55,000 a year will 
receive, at most, $7 under this misguided proposal. Meanwhile, upper 
income families get more than 10 times that amount.
  Most Americans, Mr. Speaker, cannot afford these exclusive education 
accounts. They cannot afford to set aside $2,500 each year for each 
child's education. This bill cannot and will not help them, but public 
education can. Public education can help every child, no matter how 
rich, no matter how poor. Again, public education is the great 
equalizer.
  If we are going to spend $2.5 billion on education, let us spend it 
on public education that our Nation's children and all of our children 
can use. Let us invest in public education, not tax breaks for sending 
their kids to private and religious schools.
  Mr. Speaker, for this reason I urge all of my colleagues to reject 
this proposal. Let us invest in our crumbling public schools. Let us 
support the Department of Education. Let us use our limited resources 
to invest in the millions of children who cannot afford exclusive 
education accounts. These children are the ones that need our help. 
Defeat this bill, support the Rangel substitute, support our public 
schools.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] is obviously 
quite eloquent. This is not a choice, I would say to my friend, between 
public education and private education. In fact, I do not believe the 
gentleman is trying to suggest that private education, particularly 
church-based education, is not good.
  I do think we need to support public education. It is not a choice of 
one or the other. This is to help those who want to make that choice. 
There are many who make that choice all the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman, if he could get time from his side.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, my friend would agree that 9 out 
of every 10 children go to public schools. That is where the greatest 
need is.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Including me. That is where I went.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. We are planning to spend maybe $2 billion or 
more?
  Mr. NUSSLE. My children go to public school.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. My child attended a public school.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mine still do.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. That is very good. I am just trying to help 
your child and all children; your children, my children, and the 
children of Georgia.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, not only did I go to public school and my kids, but I 
happen to have a child with special needs. I know that as much as you 
try and as much as I try, there is no way that the public education 
system is going to be able to provide all of the necessary things, the 
resources and educational tools, that my daughter is going to need into 
the future.
  I am not suggesting I necessarily need this account, I do not know. 
We will see. It probably is not going anywhere, it sounds like, from 
what we hear, because the President does not think parents ought to 
have this choice.
  I believe we ought to at least start down the road and discuss who 
should make these decisions.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we 
are proposing to help all families, not just wealthy families.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting, 
there have been several speakers who have said that parents, working 
Americans, poor Americans, cannot afford to do this, and they will not, 
and it appears with Treasury and their examples and the figures they 
have come up with, they are assuming they will not.
  If that is the case, this bill should not be a problem, because it 
will not impact our schools, because the parents that have the right to 
choose today, the wealthy parents, make those choices every day, but 
middle Americans and the poor cannot make choices because they cannot 
afford to. So if that is true, this bill should not be a problem. This 
whole debate is frivolous.
  But I cannot pass up the chance to deal a little bit with the Rangel 
amendment, which we are debating now. There is a stark difference here. 
We have a bill that encourages people to save, parents and families to 
invest in their children's future, empower parents to make choices, 
with their money, not our money, their money, and now we have a 
substitute that talks about making it easier for school districts to go 
into debt.
  I have been a businessman for 26 years, and I served in State 
government for 19 years, and watched our educational system in 
Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  1415

  A business or a school district cannot borrow their way out of 
trouble. If they are in trouble, borrowing money is not necessarily the 
answer.
  In Pennsylvania we have one school district that we gave an 
additional $400 million a year, over and above the formula, because 
they were impoverished and struggling. That $400 million never fixed 
their problem, and has not fixed it until today, because you can 
subsidize a poor school district as much as you want and you will not 
fix it, because it is not being run right.
  We have a choice here of empowering parents, encouraging them to save 
money for their own children's future, or whether we want to deal with 
the Federal Government getting involved in local school district debt. 
I am not opposed to allowing them the cheapest way to borrow money, if 
there is a way to do that. I am not opposed to that. But that is 
certainly no substitute for the bill that is before us.
  Why do we want to deprive American families the right to choose? I 
personally think very little of the money will go to basic education. I 
think the bulk of it will be, because if I was saving for my 
grandchildren and helping them, it would be to help them go to college 
and get their education.
  If the crisis came in 10th, 11th, or 12th grade, to help them get 
into the

[[Page H9069]]

program they want, why should parents not have the right to use it? I 
do not understand a government that does not trust parents to make 
decisions, and does not want to empower parents to save money to 
provide for their children's future. That is just un-American, to 
oppose it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the question here today is how can we best provide for 
the education of our Nation's youth, of which approximately 90 percent 
attend public schools? Clearly, from this debate, Members of this body 
do not share the same views with respect to this question. Some think 
that we should provide incentives for a select few to leave the public 
school system. Others, including myself, believe the answer lies in 
strengthening the current system for a larger majority.
  What concerns me, however, is that we continue to skirt the issue. I 
believe this body should focus on a comprehensive education reform 
package, one that incorporates a strengthened public school system, as 
well as incentives for families to save for college. The Rangel 
alternative is more in touch with the problems of our educational 
system.
  Unlike the Coverdell bill, the Rangel substitute is consistent with 
the goals of improving our education system and our commitment to 
attaining a balanced budget. Moreover, the Rangel substitute would meet 
critical needs for school districts throughout this country, and in 
particular, Florida.
  In a recently released report by the Florida Governor's Commission on 
Education, it was found that the construction, maintenance, and repair 
deficit in Florida was $3.3 billion over 5 years. To address this 
deficit and to come up with a constructive long-term plan to meet the 
educational needs of Florida schoolchildren, on November 3 our State 
legislature will meet in a special session. I firmly believe that an 
interest-free loan option would help their problems.
  As a former educator in Florida, I know firsthand it has a real need 
for a loan program like the substitute we are considering today. With 
more than 17,000 students jammed into portables throughout the State, 
the issue of repair and new construction must be addressed. I simply do 
not think that these very real problems faced by both the Florida 
legislature and schoolchildren can be solved through an educational IRA 
program.
  Not only would the Rangel program address these very real issues, but 
it is workable. It would be an attractive option for many of Florida's 
local governments and school districts. Creating a public-private 
partnership to meet the dire needs of our schoolchildren is not only 
innovative but fiscally sound for the Federal, State and local 
governments.
  I do not think there is anybody in this body that opposes the concept 
of allowing parents to provide the best educational opportunities for 
their children. But, as has been noted, with limited resources let us 
act in a responsible way, which would provide additional resources for 
all public school systems. Let us target our limited resources to 
programs that will benefit the most people at the greatest savings.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentlewoman, the gentlewoman 
probably remembers that in the 1997 tax bill that we just had, and 
Florida may be interested in this as well, that we passed $400 million 
for this exact purpose. In fact, it was in the 1997 bill. I think it 
was probably because of the leadership of the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel] and many others that we provided this. I think Florida has 
an option.
  Now, this is a trial period. I mean, I think it would be good to see 
how this works. But to suggest that, again, this is a choice between 
one idea and another is really not correct. This is an expansion of a 
current good idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the committee.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, there have been many arguments on this, and 
sitting on the Committee on Ways and Means I heard many of the 
arguments by the other side of the aisle, and quite a bit of the class 
warfare was engaged in this debate. We had quite a healthy debate in 
the Committee on Ways and Means on the whole idea, whether this is 
going to be for the rich or the poor.
  Many on the other side of the aisle seemed to think that people in 
lower income brackets cannot save; that they do not have confidence in 
people in lower income brackets, even though there are many people in 
this country that are in low income brackets that are sacrificing for 
their children, that are saving, that are putting money together. There 
are a lot of lower income people that are even sending their kids to 
private schools.
  But this is not just about private versus public schools. This bill, 
70 percent, it is estimated 70 percent of the money that is in this 
bill will go to helping students in the public schools. The old 
solutions for the public school systems have not worked. It is a 
disaster. In New York City, Washington, DC, most of the major cities 
around the country, the school zones, the public school zones are a 
disaster for our children.
  We need to care more about our children than we do about the 
educational bureaucracies, and those bureaucracies that protect the 
current status quo. We need to look for new answers. Forget about who 
we are protecting, other than let us think about the children.
  What this savings account will do, for those kids in public schools 
that maybe need a tutor, their parents will be able to save and 
sacrifice so maybe they can get a tutor for their child that could make 
the difference.
  The reason that we say that this is a good bill is because Americans 
right now are encouraged, because we penalize them by taxing their 
savings. Any time you save, you get taxed on it. We have a national 
savings rate now, right now, of around 3 percent. It is the least in 
our country's history.
  Traditionally, we have had about a 9-percent savings rate. Japan has 
about a 20-percent savings rate. What we are trying to do in this 
country is to encourage people at all income levels to save, and 
especially to save and to sacrifice for their children. What could be 
more important for their children than their education?
  I just encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, and no 
against the Rangel amendment.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the person here 
that talked about our school systems.
  First of all, how about those children who need a book, that do not 
have a book right now? How about those kids who do not have a computer? 
Or just as importantly, how about those kids who do not even have a 
classroom to go into?
  The gentleman's bill, while he suggests that $400 million was given 
in 1997, how about the $2.5 billion that we are looking at in the IRA? 
We could actually leverage those dollars with the Rangel bill to $8 
billion. $8 billion would make a big difference, but $2.5 billion is 
what they want to give to IRA's, and $400 million is what they wanted 
to give to construction.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rangel 
substitute. I believe the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] has 
drafted a very smart and effective proposal which would provide 
necessary assistance to public schools.
  As a former mayor and a member of a local school board, I know all 
too well about the problems facing our public schools. I have seen them 
firsthand and closeup. I did not have to read about them.
  Approximately 90 percent of our students are educated in our public 
school system. A staggering percentage of those students are forced to 
learn in schools that are crumbling all around them. We have a 
responsibility to address this deficiency. The Rangel substitute does 
just that. It provides schools with much-needed resources for 
construction and repair, the purchase of equipment, curriculum 
development,

[[Page H9070]]

and teacher training. It does all this within the confines of the 
balanced budget agreement.
  Many of us proudly supported the landmark tax relief legislation we 
passed this year, but I was disappointed that in the $90-plus billion 
relief bill, elementary and secondary education was largely ignored.
  The Rangel substitute gives us an opportunity to expand, both in 
scope and investment, upon the one area in that bill that provided real 
assistance to secondary and primary and elementary schools. The 
Taxpayer Relief Act provides interest-free capital to public schools, 
but does so only at a very modest level. Under this substitute, the 
funds available would be increased from $400 million in each of the 
next 2 calendar years to $4 billion. That is a significant 
contribution, when we look at the needs of construction in every 1 of 
the 50 States of the Union. This only touches the surface.
  Mr. Speaker, this program establishes a valuable partnership between 
our public schools and the private sector. This partnership will ensure 
that the resources flow directly into the schools where they are 
needed. At the same time, the lender will be made whole through a 
Federal tax credit equal to the interest that the borrower would 
otherwise have had to pay. This is a prudent use of Federal resources. 
The Rangel substitute is smart, and addresses real problems in our 
educational system. It does it within the confines of the balanced 
budget agreement.
  I do not oppose increasing choice in educational systems, and in 
fact, I am pleased that in the upcoming days this Chamber will likely 
have an opportunity to vote on legislation opening up the choice of 
charter schools to more students and their parents. Nor am I opposed to 
private or parochial education, having been the product of it myself.
  What I am opposed to is turning our backs on the public school system 
that educates 90 percent of our children. Let us support choice. Let us 
give parents more say in their children's education. Let us not blindly 
shun private or parochial education. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger].
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute, and 
in favor of the underlying legislation. I rise as a former teacher, 
myself, and as the daughter of a woman who spent 47 years of her life 
as an educator.
  The answer for our children is not borrowing money or further 
limiting our children's opportunities. It has often been said that 
giving children an education is expensive, but leaving them uneducated 
is a lot more expensive. That is why this Congress, through our 
legislation, is committed to ensuring that our parents get a better 
return on their investment and our children get a better experience in 
their classroom.
  Today, this Congress is considering an initiative designed to give 
our parents a choice, our students a chance, and our schools a charge 
to be the very best schools in the world.
  Our approach is simple. By allowing parents to set up savings 
accounts, we can allow families to get more for their money. We can 
allow them to build up a nest egg of money, and use it to pay for their 
children's education. If they want to buy a computer for their child, 
they can do it. If they want to send their child to a different school, 
they can do it. If they want to pay for a tutor to help their children 
learn more, they can do it.
  This may seem like small steps, but I believe they will have a big 
impact. They will help improve all of our schools in America, but more 
importantly, they will help improve the education our children receive. 
They will also do so without increasing the role of the Federal 
Government in Washington.
  Many times on many different issues we in Congress seek to make a 
statement. Well, here is one issue where we can actually make a 
difference. When people say, we cannot give our children a better 
chance, I say, we can, and also we should. When people say we cannot 
give our parents another choice, I say we can and we must. When people 
say, we cannot improve our schools, I say we can and we will. Our 
children deserve it and our future demands it.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me stand as a former 
teacher, former mayor of a large municipality, but most importantly, in 
this House today the lead Democratic sponsor of the individual 
retirement account. The notion of the individual retirement account 
was, with heavy emphasis on the middle term, retirement. That is what 
we are really discussing here. We spoke to the issue in the budget 
agreement about expanding individual retirement accounts for middle-
class people.
  The point of this issue today is that this individual retirement 
account proposal has nothing to do with retirement. We are further 
diverting resources from the public schools, but overwhelmingly it is 
being done to the benefit of high-income Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, let me cite a couple of specific examples. The bill 
before us today would only benefit families with sufficient investment 
assets that would enable them to accumulate income on those assets over 
a long period of time.
  Families paying education expenses out of wage and salary income, 
however, would receive no or little benefit under this legislation. 
Families, again, with school-aged children would receive very little 
benefit. If a family currently had a child in a private school, that 
family would receive only a small benefit, if they could contribute 
$2,500 to an investment account after having paid the cost of private 
school tuition.
  The bill before us today has no real income limits. For many 
families, the tax benefit would be less, and I urge my colleagues to 
listen to this, $15 a year; $15 a year.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the Rangel substitute which is targeted to 
schools in need of assistance. I come from the State that gave America 
the concept of a public education. The Rangel substitute encourages 
greater private sector involvement, but most importantly, it provides 
additional resources for our public schools, of which I am also a 
product. It allows us to meet the pressing need of school construction 
and repair as well as equipment purchases and course development, and 
certainly teacher training.
  This alternative expands the education zone bond provisions included 
in the Taxpayer Relief Act. It also provides an interest-free source of 
capital for public schools that enter into partnerships with the 
private sector to improve those public schools with the greatest need.
  Let me close, Mr. Speaker, on the note on which I opened. The 
individual retirement account was constructed for the purpose of 
retirement. It was built for the purpose of speaking to our low 
national savings rate. The legislation here proposed by the majority 
has nothing to do with that concept.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] just spoke 
about the individual retirement account and he said that it was a good 
idea for retirement but it was not a good idea, maybe, for anything 
else. I would just suggest to the gentleman that, as I recall the 
debate, the reason why the individual retirement account came up is 
that we learned that there was a crisis in this country about 
retirement, that Social Security could not do it all.
  Mr. Speaker, guess what? The idea was, hey, let us let people save 
for their retirement. Heaven forbid that we would give an incentive for 
that. A great idea. Well, guess what we did? We stole it. We stole the 
idea. We said if they can save for that, they can save for lots of 
things. Guess what? Savings is good. And this is the reason, because we 
also have been learning something else out here, that government cannot 
solve all the problems of this world. Parents have got to get involved. 
How do they get involved? With resources. Where do those resources come 
from? They earn them. What do we do with those resources? We take them.
  So what we are suggesting is let us leave them there. Let us let 
families make those decisions. The gentleman says that some of these 
families do not

[[Page H9071]]

earn enough, therefore they cannot utilize them. Let me tell the 
gentleman about what is happening out there. Those with the resources, 
the rich as some people like to come here to the floor and demagog, are 
already doing this. They are already setting up accounts and already 
take their kids out of the public school system. They are fleeing from 
the system. They are already doing this, with or without accounts, with 
or without Rangel substitutes. It is happening.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue is are we going to be able to empower those 
parents who need that system? Are we going to be able to empower them 
for the extra book, for the computer, for the tutor, for the additional 
expenses that a child with special needs needs in our society?
  Mr. Speaker, that is all we are saying here today. Some people are 
running in here saying that we are burning down the public school 
system. Where in the world does it say that? People that are sending 
their kids to public schools, like I am, not everybody on this floor 
who is using a lot of fancy words today necessarily are sending their 
kids to public school systems. I happen to be. I think it is important 
for our democracy.
  But I also know that the public school system cannot do it on its 
own. My son and daughter need me in order to help with that. I think it 
is important for us to recognize that this is not a choice between two 
different concepts. We are not saying pick public education or pick 
some fancy savings account. We are not saying that.
  Mr. Speaker, we are saying choose public education, but choose it 
with the ability through an incentive to save a little bit for the 
extra expenses that we know are going to be there. That is all we are 
suggesting. It is not some choice between public and private education. 
We already have that choice in front of us and already those with 
resources are making their choice and they are running from the system.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, let me just make an observation that we 
make a choice under this proposed bill every time we decide to take 
public resources and apply them to a private use. That is exactly the 
choice that is being made on that side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just go back. When we first started dealing in 
this country with education, people that had the means obviously made a 
choice to send their children to private schools. That is all that 
existed, and they made a good choice. I think private schools are 
wonderful. People that have the opportunity to do that, this is a free 
country, they ought to have the freedom of making that choice.
  We understand all the things that people got out of education. It was 
obvious and there is no mistake and no coincidence that people with the 
resources made sure their children went to private schools. But as a 
society it became clear to us over a period of time that those benefits 
of education would be good for every child in this country, and there 
were not opportunities for every child in this country to go to a 
private school and there will never be an opportunity in this country 
for every child to go to a private school.
  Mr. Speaker, we decided to use public resources for a public purpose 
to have public education. The idea is that we would invest enough 
resources to make sure that every child had the best opportunity to get 
an education, all of the economic arguments that have been stated a 
million times, and they are obvious. The idea that we will have a 
better democracy, a better society if children are educated has been 
quoted and spoken to often. The idea that every child has a right to 
enjoy life, whether it is art or music or literature or history, just 
the idiosyncracies of the world they live in, that is obvious.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the chance we want to give to the 50 million 
children that cannot go to a private school or will never, under this 
plan or any other plan, be able to go. The idea of choice is how will 
we spend our limited public resources? Will we be giving tax breaks so 
those people who are already situated well enough that they can make 
the choice to send their child to private school will get another 
break, or will we make sure that the public resources are spread around 
the larger group to benefit all of us as well as that family and that 
individual.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is the choice that I think the public wants 
made for public schools. There are excellent public schools in this 
country, when they have the resources, when the walls are not falling 
down, when the lights work, when they have the textbooks, when they 
have the computer, when the teachers are trained and retrained, when 
the class sizes are small enough. I visit them every week in my 
district and they work quite well.
  It is our disinvestment from public education through the proposed 
means and other similar means that will spell the bad note for public 
education. We can make public education work, as it is in so many 
places in this country, if we do not divert the resources. That is the 
challenge for us.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out this difference. Listen to this. 
There is a difference between us, and I respect the gentleman's 
position. That is fine. He believes take that money from people, spread 
it around. I understand that. The gentleman calls that public 
resources. I call that taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Speaker, people who worked on the line at John Deere in Waterloo, 
IA; people who are on a combine right now harvesting corn in Iowa, that 
is their dollars, it is their money. Now, I get to take some of that 
because I am the Federal Government. We will deal with that. But I 
would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, It is not your money. It 
is their money.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is obvious to all of us 
that when we are talking the taxpayers' money, we are talking about the 
community's money. I do not think it is my money. I know quite well it 
belongs to everybody. It is their choice to have a good public 
education system in this country. We ought to spend public funds, their 
funds on that, not some wealthy individual's further advantage on a 
private school. They have made that choice and they do that on their 
own.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman from Massachusetts and I guess I would thank all of us 
for bringing this to the forefront. But yet let me say that there is a 
missing element, and that missing element is the millions of children 
who today sit in public schools.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that they are not a part of this debate, 
but for those who have been educators and those who have taught in 
schools let me say that I have sat in public schools. I would not be 
here today had it not been for a strong public school system. That is 
who I want to speak for today, the millions of children who cannot be 
here who are in crumbling schools, buildings without heat, teachers who 
need a better curriculum.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a flimsy idea, this so-called education savings 
account. The Washington Post says it right. ``The House is scheduled to 
vote today on a further tax cut, almost exclusively for the better off, 
masquerading as a form of aid to education. It is not clear that this 
could pass constitutional muster since most of the tax benefit would 
end up as a backdoor public aid to private education. Only people with 
quite high incomes could afford to set aside, in advance of the 
elementary and secondary years, enough money to make the device work.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is the key element. This does not take into account 
the 90 percent of hard-working Americans whose children are in public 
schools who want to see their taxes go for better infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to support the Rangel substitute, which makes 
common sense. We know our schools

[[Page H9072]]

are crumbling. We know curriculums need to be better. We understand 
that public schools have been the real anchor for opportunity in this 
Nation. There is always something that parents will always say: God and 
country, and, yes, education. If Americans are a new immigrant, if they 
are a minority, if they are a woman, education is what does it for us.
  Mr. Speaker, this just steers away another big balloon of hope for 
those individuals who think they will be able to save. But if they are 
paying for Johnny's clothing, if they are paying the light bill and the 
rent bill, if they are paying the car note on two cars so that parents 
who both work can go two opposite directions, then they do not have the 
money to put aside $2,500 for elementary and secondary education this.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad piece of legislation. It does not work. 
Public schools are the great equalizer. They provide equal opportunity. 
The Rangel substitute says fix our schools, fix our curriculum, help 
our parents be a viable participant in the education of their children. 
Let us not use these flimsy backdoor methods, calling it a $2,500 a 
year tax savings, masquerading as an IRA for those who can already give 
$2,500 for savings and provide private school education.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support public education. Vote 
down this Coverdell legislation and support the Rangel amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2646, the Education 
Savings Act for Public and Private Schools as a cruel hoax on low-
income parents. How can a family that does not have enough money to pay 
the rent and put food on the table have enough money to put $2500 in a 
savings account.
  This is nothing more than another bone that the Republicans are 
giving to their rich constituents who are looking for a tax shelter. 
The bill means that funds that could be going to our public schools 
will now be going to private and religious schools that may not have 
any right to such a government subsidy under the Constitution.
  Our public school system is the great equalizer for our nation and I 
am appalled that we are now considering targeting our public schools to 
help out the rich!
  If a family can afford to send its children to a private school, so 
be it. The government has no business underwriting the education for 
families that do not need it. This body should be making sure that help 
all of our children receive a quality education.
  Congressman Rangel's Amendment makes sense. Let's give the public 
schools a chance, a chance to rebuild themselves, at least a chance to 
rebuild their infrastructure. This bond proposal will allow public 
schools to fix the roofs and to buy the text books they need. Our 
public schools are the backbone of opportunity for our youth. If we 
choose to abandon the schools, we will be turning our backs on them for 
the 21st century.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this attempt to undermine the 
public education system that we have always supported.

          [From the Washington Post, Thursday, Oct. 23, 1997]

                       A Flimsy Idea in the House

       The House is scheduled to vote today on a further tax cut 
     almost exclusively for the better-off, masquerading as a form 
     of aid to education. It would be a follow-on to the tax cut 
     the president and Congress included, improvidently, in their 
     plan to balance the budget earlier this year. The earlier cut 
     included an instrument called the educational savings 
     account, the investment income from which would be exempt 
     from tax if used to pay for higher education. The new 
     proposal is to allow such accounts to be used to pay for 
     elementary and secondary education as well.
       It's not clear this could pass constitutional muster, since 
     most of the tax benefit would end up as backdoor public aid 
     to private education. It would be bad policy even if it did 
     pass such muster. The concept of vouchers to help low-income 
     students transfer out of non-performing public schools in 
     which they are trapped is relevant here. It has some big and 
     obvious problems; but assuming it, too could survive a court 
     test, it seems to us worth trying at least in the form of a 
     modest experiment.
       The reason the voucher idea is relevant is that the 
     proposed tax cut comes wrapped in some of the same rhetoric, 
     but is nowhere near the same thing. Only people with quite 
     high incomes could afford to set aside in advance of the 
     elementary and secondary years enough money to make the 
     device worthwhile. The Treasury has estimated that about 
     three-fourths of the benefit would go to the highest-income 
     one-fourth of all families. The proposal is being urged in 
     the name of educational reform, which it is not. Proponents 
     say there would be no public cost, but there would. If 
     Congress sends him this, the president would be right to cast 
     his threatened veto. The proponents want the issue, which 
     they think will help them. We think they're wrong; this is a 
     flimsy idea that can't stand up to scrutiny.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Nussle], our neighbor State, for his leadership on this issue. 
What we are talking about here are a couple of values that I think are 
fundamental in American culture. One is the value of letting parents 
choose what is in the best interest of their children. The second one 
is to try and promote the highest quality level when it comes to our 
children's education.

                              {time}  1445

  I want to suggest today, we had a lot of discussion about this, but 
this frankly is an extension of the education savings accounts for 
college that became law as part of the bipartisan Tax Relief Act of 
1997. Opponents of the bill have been arguing today that this, in fact, 
may be taking money out of the public school. This simply is not true. 
These education savings accounts allow parents, grandparents, friends, 
scholarship sponsors, companies and charities to open an account for a 
child's educational needs at public, private, religious or home 
schools.
  This bill would not take away from the education formula in my State 
of South Dakota or in any other State. Public schools will still 
receive the same level of funding that they receive today. These 
accounts simply allow parents to save their own money to pay for their 
child's needs. Should not parents actually be the ones who are in the 
best position to decide what their child's needs are for school and 
should they not be allowed some type of incentive to provide for their 
children the tools that are necessary to become prepared for the 21st 
century?
  One of the arguments we have heard from the other side today and the 
opponents continue to claim is that this will only benefit rich people. 
I do not see anywhere in the bill where it says only people of high 
incomes can open these accounts. Frankly, most families in South Dakota 
are very average income levels. There are people who will benefit 
immensely from this. I think they would love to have the ability to 
save money in a tax-free account so that they could buy a new computer 
or have access to the Internet.
  We also have families in South Dakota with special needs children. 
The cost of their education often exceeds the age of 18. This bill will 
allow them to have accounts to apply to their education for as long as 
is necessary.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, opponents today are also trying to claim that 
we as Republicans are trying to send kids to private schools. Official 
estimates show that nearly 11 million families or 70 percent of those 
who would use these accounts would do so to support children in public 
schools. My children attended public schools in South Dakota. They 
attend the public school system out here in Arlington, VA. I can assure 
my colleagues, if we have an opportunity to have tax-free accounts for 
our children, that money will go toward benefiting public schools.
  I support the education savings accounts. I hope the rest of my 
colleagues do as well. I believe, again, that we are addressing values 
that are very fundamental to the culture of this country, the first 
being, of course, that we want the very highest quality education for 
our children, and secondly, that we ought to allow the parents of this 
country to determine and choose on their own what is in the best 
interest of their children.
  Mr. RANGEL. What time remains, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel] has 6\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Nussle] has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today Republicans continue their attack on 
America's public schools. This is what it is all about. Shift the 
taxpayers' dollars from public education and put it into private 
education. This legislation drains the Treasury of taxpayers' dollars 
needed to improve public schools and provides a tax break for those who

[[Page H9073]]

are the wealthiest in this country. Ninety percent of America's 
children attend public schools. These are the children we should be 
helping.
  Focusing on school construction, fix the schools where walls are 
crumbling down, invest in teacher training, purchase new textbooks, put 
in computers and get them on line with the Internet. That is what the 
Rangel substitute does.
  Republicans would help wealthy families who can already afford to 
send their kids to private schools. My kids went to public schools. I 
know what that means. I know what the great equalizer public education 
has been in this country. Under this legislation, a parent could write 
off the purchase of a car to drive their kid to school or they could 
pay one child to tutor a brother or a sister.
  Seventy percent of the benefits of the bill go to upper income 
families making $93,000 or more. It is wrong. Education is for 
everyone, not the few or the privileged.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the substitute amendment to renew and 
rebuild our Nation's public schools. As the sponsor of the Rebuild 
America's Schools Act with 115 cosponsors, I am keenly aware of our 
school building crisis. Last year, the GAO confirmed what students and 
teachers already knew, that too many of our Nation's public schools are 
literally falling down. How much will it cost to repair them? The GAO 
says $112 billion. It is shameful that we have let the problem grow so 
severe. Children cannot learn in overcrowded or makeshift classrooms. 
They cannot learn when ceiling leaks or when walls are tumbling down.
  Mr. Speaker, we have let our children down. Now we have to make 
amends. The Rebuild America's Schools Act would make it cheaper for 
States and school districts to raise capital for school building and 
repair. The Rangel substitute takes a similar approach. It makes $4 
billion available to provide interest-free bonds to our Nation's public 
schools. The money raised by these bonds would help repair buildings, 
build new classrooms. It would purchase computer equipment, develop 
teaching materials, train teachers.
  The Rangel substitute would also harness the knowledge, ingenuity, 
resources of the business community to help prepare our students for 
the rigors of the new global economy. It asks corporate America to step 
up to the plate and go to bat for our children.
  This is something each and every one of us must do. Local school 
districts are overwhelmed. The local tax base just cannot keep up with 
routine maintenance costs, let alone the costs of easing overcrowding 
or upgrading schools for 21st century learning. The fact is, local bond 
issues fail regularly. We can only address the abysmal condition of our 
Nation's school buildings with the concerted effort of every level of 
government. We need a real partnership. The Federal funds are but a 
small fraction of what is needed to solve this urgent problem. It does 
not mean that we in Washington do nothing. We must do our fair share. I 
ask for support of the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Nussle] for yielding time to me, and certainly my chairman, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  I rise hopefully not to the chagrin of the gentleman from Iowa, but 
in support of the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, this proposal addresses one of the most basic and 
perhaps pressing needs facing this Nation today, the lack of adequate 
facilities within which to educate our future policymakers and 
firefighters and doctors and lawyers in this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not allow our children to wait any longer. 
When I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle assert 
passionately the need to create reasonable opportunities for young 
people to learn, I am forced to agree. But common sense tells us that 
this cannot happen if they do not have decent school buildings and 
infrastructure in which to learn. The Rangel substitute is not a 
radical measure. This proposal seeks simply to lighten the burden on 
those who would utilize bond financing for teacher training, for 
curriculum development and infrastructure improvements.
  Mr. Speaker, this body not long ago passed the Juvenile Justice Act, 
which makes it easier to arrest 13-year-olds and send them to adult 
prisons. As one of this body's youngest Members, I would urge my 
colleagues to support this substitute, allow those young people an 
opportunity and do what is best for America's future.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle] and thank my 
chairman.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] is 
recognized for 3\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the majority floor manager, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle], for creating an atmosphere in 
discussing this issue, not one against the other, but in all 
recognizing that what we are talking about is education. This country 
is going to be just as strong as the level of that superior education 
that we are going to be able to maintain in order to have, if we are 
going to maintain our ability to be competitive.
  We cannot continue the way we are going. We can cannot ignore that we 
are putting a lot of people in jail that have no access to education. 
We cannot ignore the fact that we have to improve this public school 
system. I guess at best that we are saying that as we compete for 
limited funds, where do you want to give the priority? No matter how 
much we say that those funds belong to the taxpayer, we have a very 
complicated system in the bill before us in order to get that money in 
any way to improve the quality of education.
  Basically, what we are saying is parents know best. If they have the 
disposable income, let them save and we will be able to take the 
interest and do some things that, one way or the other, would be 
supportive of education.
  My approach is entirely different. My approach says, where is the 
problem and how can we fix it? My approach says, let us get away from 
the bureaucracy and doing things like we used to do and bring in people 
that ultimately have to say who they need to work for them if they are 
going to be effective and productive. Those are the people that are 
hiring the people, not just graduates, but hopefully graduates that can 
produce something.
  If these local communities that are in trouble, and it is described 
that they are, and you all do not have to be poor, but if you come from 
communities where you find students who are not making it, they make 
application and go into partnership with these business people, set the 
criteria for the curriculum, if the teachers cannot teach it, they help 
them to teach it and based on existing law, expand the opportunity so 
that bonds can be issued where the interest rates will be subsidized by 
credits and we can rebuild these schools, we can retrain these 
teachers, we can produce not only those who get diplomas, but produce 
kids who will be able to get jobs.
  It just seems to me that no matter how much we have to support the 
private sector, and no one should have anything against it, that we 
should not be able to take the limited resources to do that until we 
are certain that there is a public school system there that American 
kids who do not have the choices, so many of whom ended up in this 
Congress, would at least be able to say, we have a strong public school 
system.
  I am not asking that the labor leaders or that the politicians 
dictate what is going to be taught in these schools. I am asking that 
the partnership be with those entrepreneurs who know what they need to 
be competitive with foreign trade partners and we cannot do it alone.
  It seems to me it is bipartisan. The Speaker, no one more than he 
helped to get this concept in the bill. The President yielded to make 
certain that it was there. The chairman of the committee, so we do have 
$400 million there that can be leveraged. But if we were able to take 
the resources that we are talking about now that can be used

[[Page H9074]]

only by families who do have the disposable income and to be able to 
say, let us have something that is good expanded, I suggest to my 
colleagues, it would be a higher priority.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished ranking 
member of my committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, for the way he 
has also conducted this debate. It is a very important issue that he 
brings up. I ask our distinguished majority leader to close the debate 
for our side. I would point out that he is not only our distinguished 
majority leader, but he is also a teacher and a father.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is 
recognized for 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding 
me the time. More important than being a teacher and a father, I am 
proud today to tell my colleagues, I am a grandfather as well.
  I would like to compliment everybody that has participated in this 
debate today and compliment on both sides of the aisle for the interest 
and the concern that we have shown here.
  I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) well. I know the 
gentleman from New York is also a father and a grandfather. As I look 
at the gentleman from New York, probably a great grandfather. But in 
any event, whatever the generation, I have no doubt in my mind of the 
love for the children that can be found with the gentleman from New 
York.
  I believe that to be the case of all of us. We are all concerned in 
this country. Every one of us is concerned about the schools of this 
Nation and the extent to which they are in all too many cases failing 
our children. While we have that concern, we should stop and remind 
ourselves, most of the schools in most of the communities are doing 
very well by our children. Most of the communities are blessed with 
what they have. Most of the teachers are very dedicated to these 
children. And most of the teachers should be appreciated and treasured 
for their devotion to the children.

                              {time}  1500

  But we have instances where there is heartbreaking failure. Many 
people try to address this heartbreaking failure, and not the least of 
the people who have tried to do so is a person named Howard Fuller, who 
is the former superintendent of Milwaukee's public schools.
  Howard Fuller has devoted his professional life to the schools and to 
the children, and he has examined all the options that come along. He 
has tried everything he was able to, and after a lifetime's work, he 
gives us some advice.
  He says: ``If you are in a system, as I was as a superintendent, 
demanding change, but everyone there is clear that whether a single 
child learns or not, everyone is going to get paid, if everybody is 
clear that in schools that have never educated kids, each year, you are 
going to put more kids in there, there is not one single thing I can do 
about it, and all the rhetoric in the world is not going to change 
that.''
  Mr. Fuller goes on to say: ``What I am saying is simply this, I think 
you have got to have a series of options for parents. I support charter 
schools. I support site-based management--that is real site-based 
management. I support anything that changes the options for parents. 
But I am here to say that if one of those options is not choice that 
gives poor parents a way to leave, the kind of pressure that you need 
internally is simply not to occur.''
  We are inspired by Mr. Fuller's observations. We believe that what we 
need is parents to have an intimate control over where their child goes 
to school.
  Now, most of us do that. I represent the suburbs of Dallas. School 
choice is not a very important matter for my constituents. They have 
made that decision by where it is they have found their home. And I can 
tell my colleagues that when they come into the community, as anyone 
does when they go into any community, every family asks, and it is very 
important, what are the schools like? But sometimes, because of 
mobility-related, or perhaps job-related, or lack of employment, people 
find themselves incapable of moving out of a community where they know 
the schools to be failures and they are incapable of finding the 
solution to fixing the schools that are failing their children, 
incapable of having in their own right the money that is necessary to 
take them to an alternative school.
  So we tried school scholarships for some of these parents. We were 
resisted on that. That would be for the very, very most poor parents. 
We intend to do that. Those parents should have the opportunity to 
achieve a scholarship.
  We have other parents who stand right on the cusp of being able to, 
and they anticipate and they know that if they can get started and they 
can put the savings up, when their little one is at the right age, they 
will be able to use their own savings to exercise school choice.
  I talked to somebody the other day. I said, I thought very few people 
with much income in Washington, DC, have their children in the public 
schools. If they have the income, they will move them out to a private 
school alternative. One person said, well, that is true; another said 
that is not true, some of us leave our children in there.
  Most parents think more of their children. Most parents are not going 
to sacrifice their children to a bad school in the interest of what 
feeble effort that child's presence can make to the rehabilitation of 
the school. Most parents want to grab their children and run. Most 
parents know what their child needs, cares about the child having what 
it needs, and desperately invests their life's hopes and dreams and 
prayers in the child.
  Most parents realize that if only they can find a way to get their 
child out of this trap, the little guy has only got 1 year to be in the 
third grade. He has to get it right now. They cannot afford to see him 
lose that time. They do not want him losing his time falling behind. 
They want the school for his little brother, when they get him there, 
they want the school to be sound 4 or 5 years from now, if that is what 
it takes, that is great, but now their little guy has to have some 
chance.
  We have tried these different approaches to say to moms and dads that 
we understand the love they have for that child. We know that they want 
to go into their twilight years and look at their adult youngster and 
say the boy is living our dream; he is happy, he is well educated, he 
is able, he has his own family, he has good civic skills, and we made 
that happen.
  And while I respect very deeply the gentleman from New York's 
commitment to brick and mortar, I respect even more deeply the 
commitment of the parents of this Nation to doing what they must do, 
and what I can do now for my grandbaby. And this Government must know 
that goodness in these parents; must have the decency to respect that 
goodness in these parents; must respond with exactly the kind of 
measure that is brought to the floor that says to the parents of 
America, moms and dads, we know two things about this matter and we are 
bound to respect them: These are your children and that is your money. 
You are the best judge. You have the love for that child. You are 
making the commitment. You invested the dream and you invested the 
prayer in that child.
  If this Government cannot stand up and proudly honor that, this 
Government does not deserve to represent those moms and those dads and 
those children.
  I ask my colleagues, please, out of the respect for the parents in 
America that says that they need to have their right to exercise choice 
over their child's entire life now, please respect that, vote ``no'' on 
the substitute, pass this bill, and do it as a matter of honor and 
respect for the parents who we should cherish so much.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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.

[[Page H9075]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 199, 
nays 224, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 523]

                               YEAS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--224

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berman
     Capps
     Cubin
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     McIntosh
     Schiff
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1527

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Capps for, with Mrs. Cubin against.

  Messrs. BILBRAY, ADERHOLT and LIPINSKI changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GORDON and Mr. MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 523, the Rangel amendment to 
H.R. 2646, I was unavoidably detained because of a scheduled meeting in 
the White House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 
274, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 198, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 524]

                               YEAS--230

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich

[[Page H9076]]


     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cubin
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     McIntosh
     Schiff
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1553

  Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________