[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.
____________________