[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2938-H2944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2646, EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT FOR PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX, and by the
direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, I ask unanimous consent
to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference
with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Rangel
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rangel. moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 2646, the
Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools, be
instructed to agree to provisions relating to tax-favored
financing for public school construction consistent, to the
maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, with
the approach taken in H.R. 3320, the Public School
Modernization Act of 1998.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) will be recognized for 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, nearly all Americans know that the most important issue
facing us today is educating our young people to meet the challenges of
tomorrow, especially as we move into the next century. It is going to
be an era that, with all of the inventions and all of the wonders that
we have accomplished in this century, will be absolutely nothing
compared to what we have to face in the next century.
It is really so painful to see my Republican friends, instead of
stepping up to the bar and asking, ``What can we do in a bipartisan way
to make certain that our children are not used as ammunition in this
great political fight that we have,'' so that at least we know, when
the dust has settled, that we have a sound public school system that
would train our kids and help our kids to be able to meet these
challenges.
Instead of that, we have before us a bill that tells people, ``Save
your money, enjoy tax-free benefits; and this is what we, as the
majority party, have to offer you.''
Thank God we have people that can read in this country, that can see
through the farce that is before us. If everything works the way the
authors of the bills work, then in the period of a year, those who are
fortunate enough to be able to send their kids to private school will
have savings of $37. And because they want to make it abundantly clear
that this is not restricted to the private sector, there should be
savings of $7 a year for the kids in the public school.
How short our memory is when the millions of people who came to this
country, so many without training, seeking a better way of life,
looking for religious freedom, but better than that, wanting to make
life better for their children, where we had a public school system
that was there for them. Instead of reaching out, trying to destroy the
system and substituting it with vouchers and tax loopholes, we should
be saying that in this country of ours, every kid should be able to get
a decent education.
It is absolutely disgraceful to think that we are just giving
interest-free money when what we do have in the motion to instruct is
an opportunity to vote for that motion to tell the conferees to come up
with a bill that would modernize our schools and provide the funds that
are there tax free for construction of decent public schools in this
great country of ours.
What a shame it is that we have prisoners locked up in jails and
locked up in penitentiaries that have better quarters than the kids
have in our schools. I have visited schools throughout my district and
throughout the country where kids cannot be in a classroom when it
rains, where kids are in overcrowded situations. And these are the
public schools.
They may not like them because the common man and the common woman
have to send their kids there, but 90 percent of American youngsters go
to these public schools. How can they be ignored? And what benefits can
they get from this bill? We cannot take the money out of an individual
savings account and rebuild a school or provide adequate space for the
kids. It is a farce to do this, and it is even worse if we relate it to
education.
So we have to be appreciative of two things: one, that our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle are not serious, and that is good
because it means that they do not want to do harm; one, they have
allocated the money to pay for this bill with every bill they think the
President is going to veto. And so, they are not serious, but it is a
terrible, political thing to do.
And second, they know that the President is serious about the
education of our children and will veto this farce so that the tax
burden will not be on the American people.
So I ask my colleagues, please, when the appropriate time comes, let
us instruct the conferees to come up with something decent, something
that would improve our school system; and then we by agreement with our
voters, Republicans and Democrats alike, will say that we have
differences, but those differences are not so great that we are going
to sacrifice the education of the American children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the education of our children is one of the most
important issues that our Nation faces. Part of our educational system
is outstanding; it is competitive with the world, if not better than
the rest of the world. But there are other parts of our educational
system that are falling behind.
Every day our moral and social fabric is strengthened when our
children receive strong educations. As children learn and grow, we as a
Nation are enriched.
Unfortunately, the state of education in America today is not as good
in
[[Page H2939]]
some areas as it should be, and it is time to give our schools and our
teachers and our children a helping hand. The House and the Senate have
both passed strong measures to enhance the education of children. Now
we must meet in conference, reconcile the differences between our
bills, and send our plan to the President.
The House education plan is the best thing to happen to education in
years. It is good for the public schools; it is good for private
schools; it is good for parochial schools. And it is good for those
parents who are more and more educating their children in their own
homes. But most importantly, it is good for students everywhere; and
that is good for America's future.
Our plan creates educational savings accounts that allow parents and
children to deposit up to $2,500 a year into these vehicles for better
learning. The money will grow tax-free, and it can be used for a
variety of educational purposes. Parents can use it to pay for tutors,
to buy books, supplies, and uniforms and can use it for tuition and
special-needs services for the disabled.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to put our children and our
schools first. Although I know there are some who are under heavy
pressure from special interests to oppose this bill.
{time} 1045
Mr. President, do not veto this bill. Do not put the needs of the
special interests ahead of the needs of our children and our schools.
If you support Federal money through HOPE scholarships for public and
private universities, why would you oppose Federal money for public and
private secondary schools? If HOPE scholarships do not destroy public
universities, why will educational savings accounts harm public high
schools? The answer, Mr. President, is they will not.
Join me in putting our children and our schools first. Let us set
partisanship aside. Let us do what is right for our children. There has
been bipartisan support for this approach, both in the House and in the
Senate.
Mr. Speaker, let me speak briefly to the motion to instruct. The
gentleman from New York's heart is in the right place. He cares about
children, too, and about education. But he wants a tenfold expansion of
a program that was included in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. That is
impossible within the scope of this conference. The objectionable
features to the gentleman from New York that are in this bill are
actually not in his motion to instruct. His motion to instruct, if
passed, would not change his opposition to the rest of the bill as he
articulated in his comments.
But perhaps most importantly what he asks for in the motion to
instruct is impossible within the scope of conference. It is not in
either the House or the Senate bill. But his motion to instruct lives
within the technical rules because he says do it within the scope of
conference, knowing full well the scope of conference will not permit
it to occur.
Very simply, this is an ill-conceived, ill-devised motion to instruct
that will have no practical effect on the conference and should be
voted down.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
really enjoy working with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means. If he sincerely believes that the motion to instruct is outside
the scope of the conference, I want to thank him for not raising a
point of order. It saves me a little time in debating that and winning
that issue on the floor.
I also would want to say that I really do hope that we all yield to
special interests today, because our young people are very special.
They deserve better than what is being offered to them in this bill. If
there is anyone on the other side of the aisle that has enough
imagination that they can tell this House how the public schools
benefit under the bill, then I hope they research that issue and raise
that question given the opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are about to send to conference
is yet another attempt by the Republican leadership to drain precious
dollars away from our public schools and put them into private schools.
In fact, an analysis by the Treasury Department found that 70 percent
of the benefits of the Private School Expense Act would go to families
making $93,000 a year or more. The average middle-class family would
find itself with a measly $10 benefit a year, not nearly enough to
cover the costs of a private high school, which is typically about
$4,500. We need to focus on improving the schools that serve 90 percent
of America's children, the public schools.
We need to invest in technology and put computers in the classroom.
We need to modernize and rewire all school buildings so that they can
support the technology that is so essential for success in the 21st
century. We need to invest in laboratories so that students have hands-
on experience with science and have the chance to experiment and
challenge themselves with new opportunities. We need to let public
education do what it has always done in this great Nation of ours, be
the great equalizer, allowing children in this country to succeed
despite what their race, their creed, their gender or their economic
status is.
We need to improve our public schools. Let us get to work on
legislation that is going to help America's children, not just the
token few. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Rangel motion to
instruct.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
briefly respond to the gentlewoman who just spoke and the gentleman
from New York, who clearly both object to the fundamental issues in
this bill. The motion to instruct will not touch any of the issues that
they oppose and I daresay would not bring about their vote for final
passage, although I cannot presume to know how they would vote, but
clearly does not go to any of the issues that were mentioned by the
gentlewoman who just spoke.
But let me set one thing straight. This bill does not take any
dollars away from public schools in this country. The gentlewoman
misspoke about that. I think that she knows she misspoke. It does not
drain dollars away from public schools. But what it does do is give
parents an opportunity to save so that they can help to offset the
costs of education for their children in elementary and secondary
schools and to get some degree of tax incentive to do that. It is a
very positive program that hurts no one and can only help.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I
have spent my entire life trying to make sure that every child has an
equal opportunity for a quality education. But there has been nothing
more frustrating than sitting here in the Congress of the United States
to try to make that a reality. It is frustrating because over and over
again year after year all I ever hear is if we have another program, if
we have something else from the Federal level, if we do something more
from the Federal level, things will improve. Well, they have not.
Now, this is the wrong approach. Why is it the wrong approach? For 20
years, sitting in the minority, I tried to get the former majority to
please put your money where your mandate was in special education. If
you put your money where your mandate is in special education, do you
realize How many millions of dollars extra each year the Member from
New York who spoke would get? Let me give my colleagues a good example
of what he would get in his district. The York City School District is
a district of 49,000 people. The mandate from the Federal level for
special education costs that district $6 million. That is a little
city, York City. This gentleman represents 600,000 who would be in that
school district. My district, if they would get 40 percent of the
excess cost that the majority of years ago promised they would get when
they gave them a 100 percent mandate would get an additional $1
million, an additional $1 million to reduce class size, an additional
$1 million to construct schools, to remodel schools. The gentleman from
New York would get millions of dollars. All they have to do is help us
put their money where their mandate was.
[[Page H2940]]
As I served in the minority, two-to-one minority, serving on the
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and I
tried in a bipartisan fashion to do something about that. When I became
chairman, you were sending them 6 percent of the 40 percent you
promised them. In my third year as chairman, we are going to be up to
about 11 percent. But that is a long, long way from the 40 percent that
you promised. If you got that money to them, as I said before, they can
do everything they need to do in remodeling schools and building
schools, they can do everything they need, as a matter of fact, to deal
with pupil-teacher ratio.
I tried to impress upon the President. If he wants to be known as an
education President, and each one seems to want to be known as an
education President, I am not quite sure why, but they do, all he has
to do if he wants to win the hearts and the minds of all of the
constituents in all of our districts is to help us get the funding for
special ed that the local school district now has to pay. What did he
do in his budget? He cut the appropriation for special education. We
worked so hard in 3 years to get from 6 percent to 10 or 11 percent.
But we have to get to 40 percent. Then I can look the gentleman from
New York in the eye and say, ``Here is an extra 5, 6, $8 million each
year your school district will get.'' If little York will get $1
million, his district has to get probably $10 million. I have not run
his district yet. I have run many of them.
Let us approach it in the right manner. Let us get the mandate that
we have sent from the Federal level, which is special ed; that is the
only curriculum mandate. If anybody tells you we sent others, that is
not true. But that one curriculum mandate is costing the local school
district every opportunity to deal with pupil-teacher ratio, costing
that local school district every opportunity to deal with crumbling
buildings.
All we have to do, Mr. speaker, is put our money where the mandate
was 24 years ago, and the local districts will take care of everything
else. Let us not go in an opposite direction until we positively deal
with that 40 percent of excess costs, because that local district
cannot carry them. States are not helping them. We are not putting our
money where our mandate was. And so what do they have to do? They have
to take money from every other student, from every other project they
want to do to fund the Federal Government mandate.
Please, let us once and for all have an all-out war to pay the 40
percent of excess costs. It was not done when you had a two-to-one
majority, I am trying to do it with a slim majority, and that is not
easy, but we need to work together to do it. We do not need any other
new attempts to handle the problem. We just have to deal with the
problem that we created from the Federal level, and then they will take
care of everything on the local level.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman and honor and respect the dedication that he has
given to the education of our American youth and promise in the future
as in the past to try to work more closely with him in a bipartisan
manner. I regret that he had so little to say about this legislation
before us, but I can understand that, too.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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, this is not about special ed or school
construction. We should be doing both. Yes, education is a priority,
should be a priority, and I would hope it could be a bipartisan
priority. I rise to support this motion because, Mr. Speaker, schools
are crumbling across this country. Classrooms are literally
overflowing. Students are learning in hallways, but the leadership of
this Congress just sits idly by. Yes, this is the public mandate. It
should be a public mandate. We have a responsibility to rebuild our
schools and make sure that every youngster has the opportunity to
learn.
Last year nearly 120 Members of Congress showed their commitment to
America's children by cosponsoring H.R. 1104, the Partnership to
Rebuild America's Schools. This session we have a similar proposal led
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the dean of the New York
delegation. It is called the Public School Modernization Act. Our
program will make interest-free loans available to school districts
across the country through the Tax Code. Under the bill, school
districts will be able to issue special bonds at no interest to fund
the construction or renovation of school buildings. The Federal
Government will pay the interest on these bonds through a tax credit to
bondholders.
Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot ignore the poor physical condition of
our schools any longer. The GAO found that $112 billion is needed
nationwide just to bring our schools into adequate condition. Rural,
suburban, urban districts all face serious problems. It is common
sense. Children cannot learn in severely overcrowded schools or when
classroom walls are falling down around them.
{time} 1100
In New York, where the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I
come from, a survey in any office conducted found that 25 percent of
New York City public schools hold classes in bathrooms, locker rooms,
hallways, cafeterias, and storage areas. Almost half of our school
buildings have roof, floors, and walls in need of repairs. A report by
the New York City Commission on School Facilities revealed the
following:
Nearly half of New York City schoolchildren are taught in severely
overcrowded classrooms. Two hundred seventy schools need new roofs.
Over half of the city's schools are over 55 years old. And
approximately one-fourth still have coal-burning boilers.
Congress just passed with overwhelming support $218 billion to
rebuild, maintain our Nation's highways, and I support this investment.
But should we not also be investing in the future of our children?
The Republican leadership has time and time again refused to support
efforts to rebuild our schools. I urge them to support this motion, and
I invite them to come join us. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
and I would be delighted to travel around to some of the schools. We
brought Secretary Riley and our superintendent of schools, Rudy Crew,
to see some of these schools. They tried to wire these buildings. They
could not even wire them internally; they had to wire outside. And if
we cannot provide this for our children, then what are we doing here?
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
simply to briefly respond to the gentlewoman. So many things are said
on the floor of the House that just are not accurate, and that is
unfortunate; probably well-intended, but spoken before adequate thought
is given to the accuracy of what is said. Clearly the Republicans
worked with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in the tax bill
last year to put in a provision that he very strongly wanted to see put
in. The Republicans have shown over and over again concern for our
schools and quality education.
But the reality is that in this bill, neither the House bill nor the
Senate bill has the proposal that has been supported on the floor today
by the Democrats relative to an incentive to build more schools. It is
not in either bill. It is not within the scope of conference; and yet
the gentleman from New York's motion to instruct says that whatever we
have to do must be within the scope of conference.
So clearly this motion is without any effectiveness in reality, but
it has given them a basis to speak about something that they strongly
believe in, and that is part of democracy. But we should not be given
any illusion that there is any way that effectively this can be done in
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, if this bill is going to be
vetoed, then whatever we are saying is mute, and we can depend on the
veto. By the same token, it is not unusual to waive points of order,
and the conferees can do what they think is in the best interests of
the Congress and the country, and to that extent I am willing to work
with the gentleman and work out these differences of opinion.
[[Page H2941]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Kennelly).
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, what the ranking member
just said is the reason I rise in support of the motion to instruct. As
this bill stands right now, it becomes an empty gesture because the
President has already said he will veto it.
So, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues really want to do something about
the state of education in America today, they will vote for the motion
to instruct.
The President has a very good reason why he is vetoing this bill:
because it will spend virtually billions of dollars and end up not
doing anything. The Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that if the
provisions were converted to a tax credit for all taxpayers with
children to qualify for educational expenses, the credit would be $15
per child.
Mr. Speaker, that is 15 hard-earned honest dollars, but we really
know that that is not going to make much of a difference in the
education of a child in today's world. The same money could be used to
provide $7.2 billion in interest-free funds for school construction.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today because my State of Connecticut
desperately needs school construction money, so I urge my colleagues to
support this motion to instruct and get on with doing what we have to
do to make education better in these United States.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the
State of North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), an outstanding educator who
brings a great contribution in this area.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct. As a
former State superintendent of my schools in North Carolina, I call on
this House to reject the Coverdell voucher bill and instead invest the
very precious resources that we have to help our States and communities
build schools. At this very moment across America, 52 million children
are attending classes. For too many of these children, their class is
taking place in a trailer, in a closet, in an overstuffed or rundown
classroom, and as we have already heard, yes, even in bathrooms.
Mr. Speaker, no student in America should be forced to attend classes
in a substandard facility. No teacher should have to struggle to teach
in these kind of facilities, nor in an unsafe and undisciplined
environment. And no parent should be forced to condemn their children
to these kind of facilities. And they should not have schools that are
trailers.
We have heard talk about special interests. Special interest is about
young people that are here in the galleries today. They cannot get on
this floor and speak for themselves; we must do it, and it is time that
we did something about it. Instead of doing something for a few, we
ought to do it for many and all of our children.
For the past few weeks, I have toured schools all across my district.
I met with parents, I met with children, I met with teachers and
community leaders, and not a one of them have asked me where the money
was coming from. They were just grateful to know there might be
resources to make sure that they had quality schools for their
children.
And I drafted legislation, with many of my colleagues joining, to
make sure that growth States get an opportunity to have the quality
facility that every child in America ought to have. And I am here to
tell my colleagues that quality facilities will translate into quality
education and make a difference for every child in America. We have an
opportunity to do it, and the bill that I drafted will provide $436
million for the State of Florida, $840 million for the State of Texas,
and $2.3 billion for the State of California.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I mean, this is a broken record. The
gentleman should be well aware that under the rules of the House, what
he just said can never happen in this bill. It is not in the House
bill, it is not in the Senate bill, it is not within the scope of
conference and cannot comply with the motion to instruct. Nor is it
offset, as required under the pay-go provisions of the Budget Act.
So the Members from the other side can keep speaking to this issue,
and that is fine, they are entitled to speak. But the other Members of
the House should be made aware that it all is going to come to naught;
it cannot happen in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we think it is very important that we point out that in
this bill before the House, there is not one nickel there for the
public school system, and in the motion to recommit is an opportunity
to have tax-free bonds there to rebuild our schools.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in support of the
motion to instruct, and in spite of what has been said by the sponsor
of the bill in chief, I think that it is very appropriate for us to be
talking about the need for funding for modernization of our schools and
construction of new schools. I do not question the motivation of the
sponsor of the bill, but the fact of the matter is that he is ignoring
the primary need of education in our country.
More than 90 percent of our students attend the public schools. Two-
thirds of schools across this country, and it is true in New York, two-
thirds of the schools are in need of major repair or rehabilitation or
rebuilding. In the district that I represent in New York, 60 percent of
the schools are in such need.
Every day, children from kindergarten through the 12th grade are
walking into schools where the paint is falling off the walls, the
ceiling is falling in in some instances, lavatories are not working,
chalkboards are so old that they cannot accept the chalk from the
teacher. These schools are in bad need of rehabilitation.
Mr. Speaker, when a child walks into a school like that day after
day, week after week, they begin to get the message, and the message is
we do not care about them. And pretty soon they ask themselves, why
should I care about them? That is why there are 1.7 million people in
prison in this country; one of the reasons at least.
We need to pay attention to our schools. This country was built on
the idea of free elementary and secondary education. We pioneered that
idea. We were the first country in the world to invent that idea. We
are falling far behind in educating our elementary and secondary
schoolchildren, and one of the reasons is that our school buildings are
falling apart.
Mr. Speaker, they cannot accept wiring for the Internet they are so
old. Our kids cannot take advantage of new technology because the
building that they are going to school in cannot accept the wiring for
the Internet.
This is a scandal. The bill does nothing to deal with this problem;
the motion to instruct does. We need to pay attention to our public
schools.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
certain nobody wants to speak on this on the other side this time?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the sovereign
State of Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the deputy minority whip.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, so-called private savings accounts do nothing to improve
our public schools. They are a way of using the Federal Tax Code to
undermine public education. Private saving accounts drain resources
from our public schools and hurt the vast majority of our students.
Our public schools need help. One out of every 3 schools need major
repair and reconstruction; 90 percent of our students attend public
schools; private savings accounts do nothing to help these students.
Instead they deny the many and reward the privileged few.
[[Page H2942]]
Instead of draining our public schools of resources, we should be
devoting our resources to improve public schools for every student.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, education is the foundation of our
democracy. Education is the great equalizer.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Vote for school
construction and modernization. Repair our crumbling school buildings.
Support an education system in America that all of our Nation's
children can use.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that this body has agreed to spend
$1.6 billion over 10 years to help children to attend private schools
when thousands of our public schoolchildren are trying to learn in
schools that are overcrowded and in desperate need of repair. We should
be spending this money where it is truly needed, to repair and to
rebuild our public schools.
The need for new schools is staggering. We currently have the highest
number of students in the history of this country, and according to the
Department of Education, enrollment will continue to grow at a
considerable rate for the next 10 years.
{time} 1115
In order to keep pace with this growth, we will need to build 6,000
new schools over the next 10 years just to maintain current class size.
Further, many of our existing schools are in desperate need of
repair. According to a 1998 report by the American Society of Civil
Engineers, United States schools are in worse shape than any other part
of our Nation's infrastructure, including roads, bridges and mass
transit.
Studies have produced strong evidence of the link between academic
achievement and the condition of our schools. Leaky roofs, buildings in
disrepair, and overcrowded classrooms are not merely annoyances or
inconveniences; they are barriers to learning, and this is simply not
acceptable.
As the new millennium approaches, it is more important than ever to
ensure that our children have safe, modern physicians in which they can
acquire the education necessary to compete in our high-tech economy.
This vote is a small step to help our schools accomplish this goal. I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Rangel motion to instruct.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to again correct the gentlewoman as to the factual content of
her statement. There is nothing in this bill that sends money to
private schools in this country, and they can say it as often as they
wish.
She said, we should not be sending Federal dollars to private
schools. Nothing in this bill does that. This bill gives an incentive
to parents to save for their children's education. That is all it does.
If a parent elects to send their child to a public school, they can use
this money for innumerable efforts to improve their child's chance to
get a better education in a public school. For tutors, for extra books,
for computer equipment, for special help for the special needs of a
disabled child going to a public school.
That is what this bill does. So I regret that there is so much
misinformation that has been put in the record today about what this
bill does not do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
It is true that there is no direct benefit to the private school as a
result of this, but it does take away from revenues as a result of the
tax credit that can be used by parents who do send their children to
private school. And while it is not much individually, collectively,
with all of the people that gain the benefit that never asked for it,
it runs into billions of dollars.
This money could be used for taxi cabs, for private cars, for baby-
sitters, for relatives who come in, anything one wants to use it for.
Talk about simplifying the Tax Code. This thing ought to be pulled up
by its roots, because it allows for anybody with a little imagination
that sends their kid to private school to deduct anything that they can
think of without a disability for the kid. Books, any kind of books.
There is not going to be any audit as to what was done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts,
(Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), for yielding me this time.
Let me just simply say, Mr. Speaker, that it is clear that this bill
provides an opportunity for people who have this tax credit to use that
money not only for private school, but for other matters also. But the
fact remains, private schools will see the benefit of this money, and
families that are already able to send their children to private
schools will be able to use it for that.
As the gentleman says, the individual benefit is almost minuscule, $7
to $37. The fact is, the aggregate amount is going to be deferred for
the use of public schools. As public officials, we have the
responsibility to use tax money for the public benefit for the largest
amount of people possible. Ninety percent of this Nation's children go
to public schools. That is how we ought to use the money.
Time and again I hear people take the floor, deploring the conditions
in some of our public schools, wishing that they were as good as the
very good public schools that we do have out there. If we were to spend
some of that money on the condition of those schools, the
rehabilitation and the reconstruction of these schools, we would be
moving in that direction.
Why are we talking about something else when we should be talking
about making it possible for every child to go to school in an
environment where they can learn? Some of the public schools have been
neglected, and people here would not send their children, would not go
to work in a building like that. The fact of the matter is, when I go
out to the schools in my district, and I visit several every week, the
mayors and the school committee people, the councilmen and the
selectpeople say, can the Federal Government not do something to help
us with the huge construction costs for the rehabilitation and
reconstruction of our schools? The answer is yes, we can, if we have
the will. Unfortunately, the majority does not have the will to do
that.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled again to yield myself such
time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman's emotional statement
to the House, and to say that there is a time and a place to debate
this issue. This bill is not the time or the place.
This motion to instruct cannot be implemented within the rules of the
scope of conference, and yet the motion to instruct, by its own terms,
says that it must live within the rules of the scope of conference. So
all of the emotion, all of the debate on this issue should be saved for
another time when this issue is truly before the House of
Representatives and would be appropriate at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on this
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel), has 7 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there are not
going to be any other speakers on the other side of the aisle, and I
would like to close the debate, if there is not going to be another
speaker. Is there?
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, unless there
are more nonfactual comments made from his side, there is no need for
any further discussion on my side.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that under the rules of the House
that if we did receive overwhelming support for the motion to instruct,
and since the gentleman and I have worked so closely together in the
past, we could waive the points of order and adopt what is in the
motion to instruct and get on with the people's business.
[[Page H2943]]
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, as I read the gentleman's motion to
instruct, it says that whatever is accomplished must be accomplished
within the scope of the conference, and I think the gentleman is aware
that that cannot occur irrespective of how strongly we might wish to
work together.
So a motion to instruct would be nonoperative, no matter what comity,
and that is spelled C-O-M-I-T-Y, might exist between the gentleman and
the chairman in the conference committee.
Mr. RANGEL. Well, Mr. Speaker, the chairman well knows that there was
a time that both the gentleman and I thought that we could not
accomplish things in conference that we were able to do. While it is
true that we had to look at a potential veto that the President had in
the last tax bill, nevertheless it motivated us to do things we never
thought we would be able to accomplish, and I think the same situation
exists here today.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I just
would reiterate that the motion to instruct, by its own terms, would
prevent us from being able to do what the gentleman would like.
I thank the gentleman for giving me an opportunity to have this
exchange with him.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the feeling of the chairman,
and I know the gentleman would want to improve the legislation if he
felt that he could, and I think if we can see that the House would work
its will, that we could do something.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip, to close the
debate on this very important bill, and especially to support the
motion to instruct.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), my dear friend.
Let me just begin my remarks by suggesting to my friend from Texas
(Mr. Archer), for whom I have a deep amount of respect and with whom I
have enjoyed serving here for many, many years, that as a former member
of the Committee on Rules, someone who is on sabbatical from the
Committee on Rules, I can assure him, and he knows this already, and I
can assure all those who are listening, that we can do almost anything
we want in conference around here with the proper amount of will and
desire.
Secondly, the other point I want to suggest here is that it is always
time to talk about education in this body. There is no more important
issue that we can engage in on the floor of this House than education
and the future of our children who are our most precious resources.
As parents, we need to take responsibility for their education. We
need to take the time to read to them, help them with their homework,
to work with their teachers, to get involved in their schools and in
their communities, and the overwhelming majority of these schools are
public schools. In fact, nine out of ten children in America attend
public schools, and it is the quality of these public schools today
that will determine the strength and the prosperity of our Nation
tomorrow. We cannot forget that. We can never forget that nine out of
ten of our children go to the public schools.
That is why we on our side of the aisle believe we must renew and
deepen, as often as we can, our commitment to public schools by
reducing class size, by improving discipline, which is key, it is key
to everything in life, but it is certainly key to education, and by
investing in the technologies, the new classroom technologies that are
opening up vistas and horizons for our students to prepare them for the
challenges of this next century.
Now, Mr. Speaker, studies show that children learn better in smaller
classes, and that their success in the classroom at an early age can
have a direct impact on their economic success later in life. We have
an obligation to offer them all the educational opportunities that we
possibly can so that they can reach the potential and achieve their own
dreams.
Now, reducing class size and modernizing our schools should be one of
our top priorities. We all know what a terrible message we send our
children if they go to a school where the plaster is falling in, the
roof is leaking, where the toilets do not work in the lavatories, where
there are not enough facilities to do the work that is necessary in the
school, there are not enough supplies. We also understand that in this
modern age that we are living in, this swift technology age that we are
living in, it is important that we make the investments that we can in
our future for the education of our children.
But quality instruction, safe classrooms, challenging course work and
universal Internet access is not going to happen if we just wish it is
going to happen. It is only going to happen if we make it a priority,
our number one priority in this Congress, and send the message not only
from this body, but to the local and State levels, that this is where
we want our resources invested. It will take a determined commitment
from all of us, parents, legislators, teachers, business community to
make this happen. That is why I am happy to stand here late this
morning with my dear friend from New York (Mr. Rangel).
I am confident we can and will make it happen. Our children's
education and America's economic future depend on our public schools,
depend on our public schools. They put a premium, our public schools
should put a premium on excellence.
So today we have an opportunity to promote such excellence by
reducing class size, by making sure that we have the discipline that is
important in our schools, and by modernizing our schools, getting them
up to code, getting them up to standard, making sure they are wired so
our children have access to the greatest opportunities that are out
there in their learning experience.
Vote for the Rangel motion to modernize our schools.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to
instruct conferees offered by my colleague Charles Rangel to the
Private School Expense Act, H.R. 2646. I do so for the very simple
reason that to support his motion makes good sense. By supporting his
motion we are saying we support funding for school modernization and
construction. Quite honestly, I do not see how anyone in good
conscience could oppose this.
I am someone who believes that the quality of our public school
facilities reflects the value that we place on our children and their
education. In my state, Texas, high school enrollment alone is
projected to experience a 19% increase over the next decade. Given this
significant increase in the student population, we, in Congress, must
jump-start efforts at the local level to repair and modernize school
structures.
A February 1995 General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled
School Facilities: Condition of America's Schools estimated that it
would cost about $112 billion in capital improvements to restore
America's multi-billion dollar investment in schools to good overall
condition. This same report expresses continuing concerns about the
ability of schools to provide adequate instructional programs with
inadequate buildings and equipment.
Building and renovating public schools must be a national priority.
We can't expect young minds to develop into great minds unless we
provide them with good school infrastructure. Leaky roofs, busted
pipes, non-functioning restroom facilities, lack of cafeteria access,
etc., leave our children with a sense of hopelessness. We need to lift
our children up in mind and body, and encourage them to be the best
that they can be. We can do so by ensuring that the school buildings
they enter every weekday of the year meet the same exacting standards
as our own workplace environments.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Rangel motion to instruct and I encourage
my colleagues do likewise.
{time} 1130
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) has yielded back the balance of his time and although
there is much that I would like to say, in accordance with the spirit
that exists between us, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
[[Page H2944]]
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ARCHER. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 192,
nays 222, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 136]
YEAS--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
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
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--222
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
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
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Baesler
Bateman
Christensen
Dixon
Doyle
Dunn
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
McNulty
Neumann
Parker
Radanovich
Schaefer, Dan
Skaggs
Stupak
{time} 1151
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
Mrs. CUBIN changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LIPINSKI and Mr. WELLER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DUNCAN). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees:
For consideration of the House bill and Senate amendment and
modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Archer; Goodling; Armey; Rangel; and Clay.
There was no objection.
____________________