[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S11492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Coverdell bill 
because it uses regressive tax policy to subsidize vouchers for private 
schools. It does not give any real financial help to low-income, 
working and middle-class families, and it does not help children in the 
nation's classrooms. What it does is provide yet another tax give-away 
for the wealthy.
  Public education is one of the great successes of American democracy. 
It makes no sense for Congress to undermine it. This bill turns its 
back on the nation's long-standing support of public schools and 
earmarks tax dollars for private schools. This is a fundamental step in 
the wrong direction for education and for the nation's children.
  Proponents of the bill argue that assistance is available for 
families to send their children to any school, public or private. But 
that argument is false. The fact is that public schools do not charge 
tuition. Therefore, the 90% of the nation's children who attend public 
schools do not need help in paying tuition. Even worse, the people 
helped most by this proposal are families in high income brackets--and 
these families can already afford to send their children to private 
school.
  The nation's children deserve good public schools, safe public 
schools, well-trained teachers, and a good education. Private school 
vouchers disguised as IRAs will undermine all of those essential goals 
by undermining the public schools, not helping them.
  We all want the nation's children to get the best possible education. 
We should be doing more--much more--to support efforts to improve local 
schools. We should oppose any plan that would undermine those efforts.
  Scarce tax dollars should be targeted to public schools. They don't 
have the luxury of closing their doors to students who pose special 
challenges, such as children with disabilities, limited English-
proficient children, or homeless students. Vouchers will not help 
children who need help the most.
  Proponents of the bill argue that vouchers increase choice for 
parents. But parental choice is a mirage. Private schools apply 
different rules than public schools. Public schools must accept all 
children. Private schools can decide whether to accept a child or not. 
The real choice goes to the schools, not the parents. The better the 
private school, the more parents and students are turned away.
  In fact, many private schools require children to take rigorous 
achievement tests, at the parents' expense, as a basis for admission to 
the private schools. Lengthy interviews and complex selection processes 
are often mandatory. Private schools impose many barriers to admission. 
Few parents can even get to the schoolhouse door to find out if it is 
open to their child. For the vast majority of families with children in 
public schools, the so-called ``school choice'' offered by the voucher 
scheme is a hollow choice.
  Public schools must take all children, and build a program to meet 
each of their needs. Private schools only take children who fit the 
guidelines of their existing programs. We should not use public tax 
dollars to support schools that select some children, and reject 
others.
  Senator Coverdell's proposal would spend 2.5 billion dollars over the 
next five years on subsidies to help wealthy people pay the private 
school expenses they already pay, and do nothing to help children in 
public schools get a better education.
  It is important to continue the national investment in children and 
their future. We should invest more in improving public schools by 
fixing leaky roofs and crumbling buildings, by recruiting and preparing 
excellent teachers, and by taking many other steps. We should not 
invest in bad education policy and bad tax policy.
  We know that at the current time, 14 million children in one-third of 
the nation's schools are learning in substandard facilities. Over half 
of all schools report at least one major building in disrepair, with 
cracked foundations, or leaking roofs, or other major problems. If we 
have 2.5 billion more dollars to spend on elementary and secondary 
education, we should spend it to deal with these problems.
  During the next decade, because of rising student enrollments and 
rising teacher retirements, the nation will need over 2 million new 
teachers. Yet today, more than 50,000 underprepared teachers enter the 
classroom every year. Students in inner-city schools have only a 50% 
chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher. We 
should support teachers and rebuild our schools--not build tax shelters 
for the wealthy.
  It is clear that this proposal disproportionately benefits wealthy 
families. The majority of the tax benefits would go to families in high 
income brackets. These families can already afford to send their 
children to private school.
  Working families and low-income families do not have enough assets 
and savings to participate in this IRA scheme. This regressive bill 
does not help working families struggling to pay day to day expenses 
during their children's school years.
  The majority of families will get almost no tax break from this 
legislation. 70 percent of the benefit goes to families in the top 20 
percent of the income bracket. Families earning less than $50,000 a 
year will get a tax cut of $2.50 from this legislation--$2.50. You 
can't even buy a good box of crayons for that amount. Families in the 
lowest income brackets--those making less than $17,000 a year--will get 
a tax cut of all of $1--$1. But, a family earning over $100,000 will 
get $97.
  Even many families who can save enough to be able to participate in 
this IRA scheme will receive little benefit. IRAs work best when the 
investment is long-term. But in this scheme, money will be taken out 
each year of a child's education. Only the wealthiest families will be 
able to take advantage of this tax-free savings account.
  In addition, ``qualified expenses'' are defined so broadly in this 
bill, that parents could justify almost any expense even remotely 
connected to the costs of elementary and secondary education, creating 
a large loophole for people to spend funds in ways not intended.
  In order to guard against fraud and abuse, the IRS would have to take 
on more tax audits of families that establish these accounts. The IRS 
will have to ask what school a child attends, what expenses the parents 
actually incurred, and whether the accounts were properly set up and 
used.
  This bill is bad tax policy and bad education policy. It does not 
improve public education for the 90 percent of children who go to 
public schools. It is a waste of scarce tax dollars.
  Education reform should help education, not undermine it. Students 
need to master the basics, meet high standards, and be taught by well-
trained teachers. We need to hold schools accountable for results, and 
create safe buildings and learning environments.
  This bill is simply private school vouchers under another name. It is 
wrong for Congress to subsidize private schools. We should improve our 
public schools--not abandon them.

                          ____________________