[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.

                          ____________________