[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 29 (Tuesday, March 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2104-S2106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           COVERDELL TAX BILL

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on the issue that is before us, which is 
basically the Coverdell education proposal, I will take a few moments 
of the Senate's time to express my strong reservations in opposition to 
the proposal, and I will outline the reasons why.
  Public schools need help--and this ``do-nothing'' bill doesn't even 
get us to the front door. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction, 
by earmarking most of its aid to go to private schools.

[[Page S2105]]

  The nation's students deserve modern schools with world-class 
teachers. But too many students in too many schools in too many 
communities across the country fail to achieve that standard. The 
latest international survey of math and science achievement confirms 
the urgent need to raise standards of performance for schools, 
teachers, and students alike. It is shameful that America's twelfth 
graders rank among the lowest of the 22 nations participating in this 
international survey of math and science.
  The nation's schools are facing enormous problems of physical decay. 
14 million children in a third of the schools are learning in 
substandard school buildings. Half the schools have at least one 
unsatisfactory environmental condition.
  Massachusetts is no exception. Mr. President, 41% of Massachusetts 
schools report that at least one building needs extensive repair or 
should be replaced; 75% report serious problems in their buildings, 
such as plumbing or heating defects; 80% have at least one 
unsatisfactory environmental factor.
  The challenge is clear. We must do all we can to improve teaching and 
learning for all students across the nation. That means: We must 
continue to support efforts to raise academic standards; we must test 
students early, so that we know where they need help in time to make 
that help effective; we must provide better training for current and 
new teachers, so that they are well-prepared to teach to high 
standards; we must reduce class size, to help students obtain the 
individual attention they need and we must provide after-school 
programs to make constructive alternatives available to students and 
keep them off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. We must 
provide greater resources to repay or modernize the Nation's school 
buildings in order to meet the urgent needs of schools for up-to-date 
facilities.

  I oppose the Coverdell bill because it does nothing to improve the 
public schools. Instead, 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 an 
unjustified tax giveaway to the wealthy and to private schools.
  Public education is one of the great success stories of American 
democracy. It makes no sense for Congress to undermine it. This bill 
turns its back on the Nation's longstanding support of public schools 
and earmarks tax dollars for private schools. It is an unwarranted step 
in the wrong direction for education, for public schools, and for the 
Nation's children. Senator Coverdell's proposal would spend $1.6 
billion over the next 10 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.
  This chart I have is based on the Joint Tax Committee memo, which is 
the committee designated by the Congress to review tax bills and 
provide analysis of various tax changes. The Joint Tax Committee memo 
demonstrates the distorted priorities of the Coverdell bill. The bill 
has a $1.6 billion price tax over the next ten years--and half the 
benefits--$800 million--go to the 7 percent of families with children 
in private schools. That's an eight hundred million dollar tax bread 
for the tiny fraction of parents with children in private schools. 
That's unacceptable, when public schools are desperate for additional 
help.
  We have nothing against the private schools. They are superb in many 
circumstances. But, scarce tax dollars should go to the public schools 
that have great needs.
  We should invest scarce resources in ways that will help children 
raise academic performance and enhance their abilities? That is my test 
and the Coverdell bill fails it.
  The Joint Tax Committee memo also estimates that while 83 percent of 
private school families will use this tax break, only 30 percent of 
public school families will use it.
  The majority of the tax benefits will go to families in high income 
brackets, who can already afford to send their children to private 
school.
  But 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 Joint Tax Committee memo says that the few public school families 
that do use the provision will get an average tax benefit of $7--$7! 
That means that a working family has to find $2,000 in extra resources 
in order to get back $7. This education bill does nothing for 
education. It simply provides a tax shelter for the rich.
  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 $93,000 will get 
$97.
  Even 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.
  Proponents of this 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, the public schools do not charge 
tuition. Therefore, the 90 percent of the children who attend the 
public schools do not need help in paying tuition. What they do need is 
the best possible education. We should be doing much more to support 
efforts to improve local schools. We should oppose any plan that would 
undermine those efforts.

  On this next chart, it is clear that this bill disproportionately 
benefits families with children already in private school. Of the 35 
million public school families, 30 percent could use the Coverdell IRA. 
But 83 percent of the 2.9 million private school families could use the 
IRA.
  Again, the issue of fairness. The issue of the test should be what is 
going to benefit children and enhance their academic achievement. This 
particular proposal does not meet this test. The Coverdell bill is a 
back-door attack on public education, and it should be defeated.
  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. This bill will not help 
children who need help the most.
  Proponents say it will increase choice for parents, but the 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. Public schools must accept all 
children and build programs to meet their needs. Private schools only 
accept children who fit the guidelines of their existing policy. We 
should not use public tax dollars to support schools that select some 
children and reject others. This bill is bad tax policy, bad education 
policy. It does not improve public education for the 90 percent of the 
children who go to public schools. Therefore, it is not an appropriate 
allocation of tax dollars.
  This bill is simply private school vouchers under another name. It is 
wrong for Congress to subsidize private schools. Our goal is to improve 
public schools, not abandon them.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kempthorne pertaining to the submission of S. 
Con.

[[Page S2106]]

Res. 84 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent 
and Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________