[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S11406]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE A-PLUS SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, within the next few days this Senate 
will vote upon a proposal that I have offered with Senator Coverdell, 
S. 1113--A-plus savings accounts. It is a proposal I know that many 
Members of the Senate are considering for the first time. I take the 
floor today to ask them to look carefully at its many provisions.
  Like many Members of my party, I have great reservation about the 
movement to vouchers in the various States and by the Federal 
Government. It has always been my concern that vouchers not only invite 
constitutional challenge, but inevitably results in a movement of 
resources from the public schools, where they are already too scarce, 
to private schools.
  The issue in my mind is not to move resources from public to private 
schools, but to increase resources for all schools. That is why, 
although I differ with Senator Coverdell and other Members of the 
Senate on vouchers, we have come together as Democrats and Republicans, 
provoucher and antivoucher Senators, on the issue of the A-plus savings 
accounts.
  Let us look at the facts about these savings accounts.
  First, there is not the use of public money. This is money that an 
individual or their employer or their labor union can put in a savings 
account for the education of a child in grade school or high school, 
therefore, there is not a constitutional issue and there is not a 
diversion issue of public educational resources to private schools.
  Second, where does this money go? And who does it help? The Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimates that almost 75 percent of the money 
that will be placed in these accounts actually would go to public 
school students because although we are allowing the accounts to be 
used to support tuition at parochial schools or other private schools, 
it also would be available for ancillary activities of public school 
students.
  Since 90 percent of American students go to public schools, these 
funds--available for computers, tutoring, after-school transportation--
would, to a significant, indeed overwhelming extent, actually go to 
public school students.
  This is the right program at the right time, bringing the right 
resources to the students most in need.
  In many of our urban centers today, including in my own State of New 
Jersey--from Camden to Newark to Jersey City--if we lose our private 
schools, our parochial schools, we do not have the capacity in the 
public schools for those students. And many working-class, working-poor 
parents want this option. I do not know why we would deny it to them.
  Critics have said, ``Well, this is only available to the rich.'' But 
in fact for a single taxpayer, we have put a ceiling of $95,000. It is 
estimated that 70 percent of all of these resources would go to 
families that earn under $70,000 a year.
  An uncle can put $10 in an account every month for a favorite nephew 
or niece. A grandparent, at a birthday or Christmas, can put $100 or 
$200 in an account. A parent, from the time of birth, can put a few 
dollars away every month to ensure that their child is getting the high 
school or grade school education they want them to have.
  What can be wrong with that, getting the entire family involved in 
saving for a child's education? But if the option is public school--
which it is overwhelmingly in the United States; and understandably 
so--then these funds are available to give a quality public school 
education.
  Sixty percent of all students in public schools in America today do 
not have a computer at home. Eighty-five percent of all minority 
students in the public schools do not have a computer at home.
  An overwhelming majority of public school students cannot afford a 
tutor, even if they are having trouble with math or science. These 
accounts are available for that tutoring and for that equipment. It 
gives a new advantage to parents who want to get engaged in their 
child's education in the public schools.
  For all of those reasons, I am asking, particularly members of my own 
party, to look once again at the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal for A-
plus savings accounts. This escapes the central conflict over vouchers 
and strengthens both public and private education.
  No Member of this body today, no matter how they feel about vouchers, 
can possibly argue--when the United States is now being ranked 15th out 
of 18 nations in the quality of math performance by our students; near 
last in science education--no one can defend the status quo. No Member 
can honestly believe that a chance to bring new resources, private 
resources, to middle-income families who want to get engaged in their 
own child's education is a bad idea.
  We will, Mr. President, have a chance to obviously debate this at 
length when the bill is brought before the Senate. But here today, in 
anticipation of that debate, I wanted to ask Members of the Senate to 
use the time between this discussion and that debate to familiarize 
themselves with this proposal and the hope that we can genuinely have a 
good and bipartisan level of support in sending this bill, which has 
already passed the House, on to the President.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________