[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 29 (Tuesday, March 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2097-S2099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, tomorrow, I understand, the Senate 
will begin debate on S. 1133, probably one of the most important 
debates on education that this Senate will take up this year. This is a 
vitally important debate, so I want to take this along with other 
opportunities to talk about various aspects of the underlying 
legislation, that is, S. 1133, as well as amendments that I and others 
intend to offer which we believe represent a better approach to 
education policy at this time in our Nation's history.
  At the outset, let me say that the underlying bill will allow 
families to put up to $2,000 a year into special education savings 
accounts and then allow those families to withdraw those funds to meet 
the costs of attending private or religious schools, middle schools and 
high schools. Contributions into these accounts would not be tax 
deductible, but interest on the accounts would be tax free.
  There are several problems with this proposal, and I would like to 
discuss them. But I think the most important point was made this 
afternoon by the minority leader when he asked the question, is that 
all there is? Given the tremendous need for educational resources, for 
providing national support for our elementary and secondary schools in 
this country, given the results just last week of international tests 
that showed the United States coming in dead last in science and math, 
below even some Third World countries, given the need of our country to 
prepare this next generation of Americans for their role and leadership 
in this world economy, in this technological age, it seems to me we 
should be able to engage a more appropriate national response to the 
tremendous need for educational support than this proposal provides.
  In the first instance, the changes made to the Education IRAs by S. 
1133 will only give families an average annual benefit of $7. That is 
to say, the average annual benefit to a family with a child in the 
public schools will be $7 a year--$7. And that $7 will cost an 
estimated $1.6 billion over the next 10 years. Seven dollars a year. I 
think it is appropriate to ask, is that all there is? Is this the best 
we can come up with in response to the crisis in education our country 
is facing?
  Mr. President, $7 a year is hardly a windfall for American families. 
It is not enough to cover the expense in a day, in most instances, of 
pencils or crayons or construction paper for that matter. But the point 
is that with $7 we will essentially be providing what some have 
referred to as leeches to cure a disease. That is to say, we will be 
draining away resources from our public school system in order to 
provide an average of $7 a year for parents. That is not good policy. 
That is not practical. And certainly that is an inadequate response to 
the challenges we face in education policy.
  Some have argued that the bill is a good idea because it represents 
savings policy; we want to encourage Americans to save. And, of course, 
it is almost an article of faith that Americans do not save as much as 
citizens of other industrialized countries. We want to do everything we 
can to bolster the savings rate in this country.
  Of course, I agree with that proposition; we do want to encourage 
people to save. But this is bad savings policy. The purpose of IRAs, 
individual retirement accounts, is to encourage long-term savings, 
again, by definition, for retirement. The proposal today makes a 
mockery of that concept, allowing withdrawals to begin only a few years 
after contributions have been made. It has nothing to do with 
retirement and has nothing to do with long-term savings. There is no 
benefit associated with contributions into these education IRAs. It is 
when the withdrawals are made that the benefit is realized. There are 
no taxes paid on withdrawals from the accounts, no matter how much the 
contributions have grown over time. So the benefits, therefore, are 
directly related to the length of time that the money remains in these 
accounts.

  By allowing withdrawals only a few years after contributions have 
started, this bill ensures that the only people who will be able to see 
any noticeable benefit at all from those accounts will be those who can 
afford the maximum contribution every year. In other words, the only 
people who will really benefit from this legislation are the wealthiest 
eligible Americans. According to the Department of the Treasury, the 
bill does exactly that; it concentrates the benefits of the legislation 
into the hands of the wealthy.
  The Treasury Department analyzed a slightly different version of this 
tax scheme and calculated what we refer to as its distributional 
effects, that is to say, who gets what from a given proposal. That 
analysis found that 70 percent of the benefits would go to those 
Americans in the top 20 percent of the income scale. That is to say, 
families with annual incomes of at least $93,000. Fully 84 percent of 
the benefits would go to families making more than $75,000. The poorest 
people, the poorest families in the country, those at the bottom 
percent of the income scale, would receive 0.4 percent of the benefits.
  So here we are saying we are going to do something to help education, 
and we turn the benefit on its head so that those who have the least 
get the least, those who have the most get the most, not based on 
ability to support education, not based on children's needs.
  I do want to make it clear that the proposal we will debate tomorrow 
is slightly different than the proposal on which the Treasury 
Department estimates are based and so you may hear other figures. But 
the point has to be made that the distributional effect, the benefit of 
the bill going to the wealthiest Americans still holds as a valid point 
of observation with regard to this legislation.
  Another point that was made by the analysis of this bill, this time 
by the Joint Committee on Taxation, is that more than half of the 
benefits of the bill would flow to the 12 percent of families whose 
children are already in private schools. So that is to say, most of the 
money will go to families with children in private schools.
  There are right now in our country about 46 million children in 
public schools and about 6 million children in private schools. This 
bill would direct more than half of its benefits to the families of 
those 6 million children--half to 6 million, the other half to 46 
million children.
  Federal education policy, I believe, should be designed to help to 
improve the quality of education available to all American children, 
not just a small group of them.
  I mentioned that this was, in my opinion, bad savings policy, bad tax

[[Page S2098]]

policy and bad fiscal policy, but I would point out that it is also bad 
education policy. The bill is a backdoor way of diverting resources 
from public schools to the private schools. It represents a ploy to 
dismantle the public schools that, frankly, have made our country what 
it is today. Public education is central to the American dream of 
opportunity, and the rungs of the ladder of opportunity have always 
been crafted in the classroom. The public schools provide an 
opportunity for every child, no matter how wealthy or how poor. By 
diverting resources away from the public schools, we diminish the 
opportunities available to the vast majority of students who will be 
left then in the public school system. We will be essentially, again 
using the analogy, using a leech to cure whatever ails the public 
school system. That is not good education policy, and I think this 
legislation should therefore be rejected.
  We cannot afford to leave any child behind. This voucher proposal, or 
tax scheme, whatever you want to call it, in that regard, presumes that 
a market-based solution will solve such problems that exist within our 
public school system. The plan presumes that by giving parents money to 
send their children out of the public schools and into private schools 
will somehow improve the quality of education available to our 
children. But by definition markets have winners and losers, and we 
cannot afford to lose any child in a game of educational roulette, or, 
more to the point, a game of educational triage in which we spin off or 
assist people to spin off the better students and the more affluent 
students into private systems.
  Supporters of similar voucher plans claim that they will help the 
neediest children the most. Research, experience, and common sense 
suggest otherwise. Researchers have concluded that academically and 
socially disadvantaged students are less likely to benefit from school 
voucher programs. Voucher programs in Britain, in France, the 
Netherlands and Chile confirm this research. They led to increased 
economic and social segregation of students. They widened the gap 
between students, instead of narrowing it. In Chile, performance 
actually declined for low-income students. Of course, that is not 
surprising, because any use of public funds of this magnitude for 
private schools will require that fewer resources will be available to 
be devoted to public schools. Since the vast majority of low-income 
students will remain in the public schools, and the worst of these 
schools are for the most part already sorely underfunded, it makes 
sense that private school vouchers would further weaken the public 
school system.
  Supporters of using Federal funds to support private schools claim 
that those schools are better managed, that they perform better and 
they cost less than the public schools. Again, the facts show 
otherwise. While it is true that some public schools are inefficient, 
vouchers, again, do not solve that problem; they only drain resources. 
What will solve the problem and what does solve the problem and has 
been shown to solve the problem with public education is parental and 
community involvement and good management.
  In Chicago, in my State of Illinois, innovative leadership and a ``no 
excuses'' attitude have reshaped the school system in only 2 years. 
Under the new leadership there, in a few years the Chicago public 
schools will be transformed into a first-rate school system across the 
board. The innovations, the reforms, the initiatives that are being 
undertaken there in Chicago will benefit all 425,000 students in the 
public system, not just a select few who might benefit from a voucher 
scheme or a tax plan such as this legislation suggests.
  Every mismanaged school needs to have the kind of leadership that, as 
we have demonstrated in Chicago, can work; not a draining off of what 
limited resources it already has. As for cost, private schools can 
charge less because only 17 percent of them--and you know the argument 
has been made that private schools can do it cheaper. But, again, look 
at the facts. Only 17 percent of the private schools provide special 
education, for example, and it costs at least twice as much to educate 
a disabled child. Remember that we have compulsory education in this 
country, so our public schools accept every child no matter the 
situation. No matter whether the children are disadvantaged or disabled 
or disruptive, the public schools accept them. If private schools were 
required by law to accept everyone, then it is likely that their costs 
would be commensurate with the costs in the private system.
  Many private schools also limit admission to students with good 
academic records, and they do not have to accept the disruptive 
students. These selective admissions policies mean that in practice 
what would really happen is that instead of parents choosing a school 
for their children, the school would choose the children that it is 
willing to accept. Again, this is turning things upside-down in terms 
of education policy, because for a school to be able to decide that 
some group of children or some children should not be admitted seems to 
me to set up the kind of dichotomy that I do not think, in this 
country, we want to see develop. Vouchers in this situation and the tax 
scheme that's suggested in S. 1133 would offer false hope to parents 
and children who could be denied admission to selective private 
schools.
  The Federal Government currently meets only about 6 percent of the 
costs of public education nationally. We do not even cover the costs of 
our mandated programs. The Presiding Officer and I, when we first came 
to the Senate, worked on the issue of unfunded mandates and recognized 
that, in many instances, the Congress will tell local governments to do 
something, will give directions, but we do not pay the costs of those 
directives. Education is yet another example, and public education 
particularly is another example of unfunded mandates flowing to the 
schools that we do not pay for because, again, on average we pay about 
6 percent of the costs of education.

  For us now to further divert resources from an area where we are 
already not doing enough makes absolutely no sense, is 
counterproductive, and, it seems to me, flies in the face of our 
national obligation to see to it that no child is denied the 
opportunity to receive a quality education in America. But, 
transferring funds from public schools to private schools will not buy 
new textbooks for public school children nor will it encourage better 
teachers to go and work in the public schools. This tax scheme will not 
fix a single leaky roof or handle one set of management issues. It does 
nothing but, again, divert resources from a system already sorely in 
need and already grossly underfunded by our national contributions.
  Here in the District of Columbia, and in all cities, many businesses 
and apartment buildings--and this is by way of an analogy--businesses 
and apartment buildings hire private security guards to supplement 
their security because they do not believe that the local police will 
do an adequate job in protecting them. Does that mean, then, that we 
should skim money off of what we give to the police departments so we 
can make it easier for businesses to hire private security guards? Or 
that those funds would be better spent improving the quality of law 
enforcement by draining money off to private security forces? I do not 
think so. If anything, we have a responsibility as a community to use 
our public resources toward the public welfare and the public good.
  The reason we have compulsory education in this country is so that 
every child can receive a quality education. If our public schools are 
not all meeting that challenge, then it is our responsibility to fix 
them. It is our responsibility to engage in a partnership with the 
States and local governments, so that education can be the priority for 
our country that it must be. Spending taxpayers' dollars on private 
schools, again, is not going to fix a single public school.
  One of the more troubling aspects of the legislation is the 
underlying premise that the public schools cannot succeed, that we just 
have to write them off. This bill says to America's public 
schoolteachers and principals and families with children in the 
schools, ``You have failed.'' It starts a process of diverting 
resources from public schools to private schools, and it seems to me 
that is absolutely the wrong message.
  There is, however, good news from public education. I think we need 
to

[[Page S2099]]

talk about that a little bit. Again, relating to some of the 
innovations going on in Illinois, there is a consortium of some 20 
school districts in the Chicago area. It is called the First in the 
World Consortium. They lived up to their name because in the 
international math and science tests of which I spoke earlier, this 
group of schools scored first in the world. They were all public school 
students and they scored first in math and science--the public school 
system, and they received the best results in the world in these areas.
  The results of these tests prove that America's public schools can 
produce the best and the brightest students in the world if only they 
have the support, the resources and the tools with which to do the job. 
What does the First in the World Consortium have that too many of our 
schools lack? It is not the kids. It is not the makeup of the students. 
Our children are as capable of performance as children anywhere else in 
the world, whether they come from rich families or from poor families. 
We have some of the brightest students in the world, who only need the 
opportunity to learn. The difference, however, is what support we as a 
community provide for those children. The schools that comprise the 
First in the World Consortium have some of the best facilities in this 
country. They have small classes. They have modern technology. They 
have supportive communities. And they have engaged and involved parents 
and teachers.
  We all, I think, have a responsibility to ensure that every American 
child will have access to the same kind of quality education that is 
made available in the public schools at the First in the World 
Consortium. The tax changes envisioned in this legislation will not 
accomplish that goal. The bill will not result, again, in the 
improvement of a single public school. The amendment which I hope to 
talk about suggests that we have to undertake a partnership between the 
State and local and National Governments to provide the kind of 
resources for public education that made our country the strongest in 
the world and will keep it the strongest in the world for the 21st 
Century.
  This conversation is going to go on for a couple of days. I would 
like to leave you with an analogy which I think is absolutely 
appropriate when we talk about how we are going to address the 
challenge of education for the 21st Century.
  There have been some arguments that it is not the Federal 
Government's job; that, indeed, it should be left to the locals to 
address education, and it is their job, it is their responsibility to 
see to it that the schools in a local community function well and 
provide quality education. I would point out to the Presiding Officer 
and to anyone else listening that that analogy fails altogether to 
recognize our national interest and our interest as a community of 
Americans in seeing to it that all children, whether they live in 
Chicago or California or Detroit or in Florida or in Georgia or in 
Alabama--that all children in this country receive the best possible 
education that we can give them. It is particularly important in this 
information age, given the technological revolution, because the 
command of and the ability to manipulate and use information will be 
more important in the workforce of the future than it is today. If we 
do not educate our children, we will, as a country, see a lessening in 
the ability of our national workforce to be productive in these global 
markets.
  So, to use an analogy, when it comes to talking about what is our 
interest, why should the Senator from Illinois care about education for 
a child from North Dakota or why should the Senator from Illinois care 
about the education of a child in Alabama, the reason I care is I love 
my country and I care about the ability of my country to have a 
workforce that can function in this global economy. Just as in the 
1950s it was seen as in our national interest to bring our country 
together, this debate holds the same promise. This debate will either 
turn on a vision of America that says we are all connected to each 
other, we all have a responsibility to each other, or it will turn on a 
vision of America that says, ``I've got mine; you get yours. In your 
State, in your city, education is your problem.''
  I suggest the time for the finger-pointing on education has to stop. 
We have to form a partnership that will provide our schools with the 
resources that we will need to educate our children--all of them. 
Again, to use the analogy from the 1950s, President Eisenhower saw the 
value in providing our country with an interstate highway system. He 
brought America together by providing a system whereby the National 
Government would contribute to the construction and the development of 
roads all across this country. That interstate highway system brought 
us together as a nation and served our national interests in 
transportation.
  The way that we are funding education currently would be the 
equivalent of saying to each and every community in America--which, of 
course, we are saying to each and every community in America--you go 
find the money from your local property tax base to provide for your 
schools. And if you don't have the money in your local property taxes 
for your schools, it will just be too bad. To use the road analogy 
again, it's like saying in those communities that have a limited 
property tax base and in poor communities, they will have shoddy roads 
if any roads at all. The middle-class communities with moderate means 
will have kind of a hodgepodge and a mix of decent roads and kind-of-
decent roads; and the wealthy communities will have the greatest roads 
in the world. But when you put it all together, you have not 
served transportation from one end of this country to the other. You 
have left the issue of transportation up to the resources of the 
specific and discrete communities and, more to the point, the property 
tax base that that community can resort to. That is how we fund 
education in this country. By relying on the local property tax base, 
we depend entirely on the accident of geography and demographics 
whether or not a child's school will be adequate to provide a quality 
education.

  So I say to my colleagues that, as we look at this issue, let's find 
common ground, let's stop pointing fingers, and, as much the point, 
let's not continue to allow the kind of savage inequalities that exist 
among communities based on wealth to determine the future of our 
country in this 21st century global economy. If a community does not 
have the property tax resources to provide for educational opportunity, 
then that community ought to be supported in its efforts to educate its 
children by the State and by the National Government. We all have a 
role to play. We all have a contribution to make.
  Again, finger pointing only hurts the children. I am going to, at 
this point, thank the Chair and yield the floor. I just say I look 
forward very much to continuing this debate in the upcoming days. I 
think it is one of the most important debates that we can take up as a 
Senate. I think the future of our country, indeed our national 
security, hangs on our ability to address in a sensible and workable 
and comprehensive way, the challenge of public education for the 21st 
Century.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the parliamentary situation is such that 
we are in morning business and Senators are permitted to speak for up 
to 10 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________