[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4641-H4643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2646, 
          EDUCATION SAVINGS AND SCHOOL EXCELLENCE ACT OF 1998

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 471 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 471

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule 
to provide for the consideration of the conference report accompanying 
H.R. 2646, the Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. In addition, the rule provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, every child in this country deserves the best education 
possible and every parent knows what school will best suit their 
children. Here in Congress, it is our duty to get out of the way and 
empower all Americans to follow through on their educational choices. 
We will do just that tomorrow when we approve the conference report to 
the Education Savings Act of 1998.
  Simply put, the Education Savings Act will allow caring fathers and 
mothers, as well as concerned charities, corporations, friends or 
grandparents, to save more for their children's education. By 
permitting parents to deposit up to $2,000 per year in a tax-free 
education savings account from 1999 through 2002, the bill will help 
parents pay for elementary school, secondary school, and college 
tuition.
  Not all parents need to save for private school tuition though. Often 
the local public school is clearly the best option. H.R. 2646 
recognizes that, even before they send their children to college, the 
parents and friends and relatives of public schoolchildren deserve tax-
free education savings too. The bill permits all young families to save 
tax-free for tutoring expenses, computers, books, special needs 
services, and extended day program fees.
  Mr. Speaker, all too often young parents are unable to give their 
children the very best. Every year rent, mortgage payments, grocery 
bills and, yes, taxes limit the educational choices of American 
families. A select few wealthy parents have no problem paying for 
tuition, if necessary, as well as for tutors and computer equipment. 
But the rest of us, we could use real help. Americans should be able to 
keep a little more of what they earn to pay for education.
  In addition to tax-free education savings accounts, H.R. 2646 expands 
government efforts to teach our children

[[Page H4642]]

to read. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Education to spend $210 
million per year from 1999 through 2001 to support State and local 
child literacy efforts.
  There is a sense of the Senate in this bill on Dollars to the 
Classroom. The sense of the Senate resolution says that 95 percent of 
every Federal education dollar should end up in the classroom.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Teachers' unions and advocates of 
public school bureaucracy may balk at our efforts to expand the 
educational choice of American parents while we work to improve our 
public schools, but this bill is a sincere effort to throw politics 
aside and to help children and families who need help most.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 471 waives all points of order 
against the conference report on H.R. 2646 and against its 
consideration. While I will not actively oppose the rule, I rise in 
strong opposition to the underlying bill.
  We all know that we need to improve our public schools to give our 
children the education they need to reach their full potential. 
Educators agree that we need to target our assistance to schools and 
students who do not have the resources needed to have an equal 
opportunity to succeed.
  Our limited Federal education programs should target those most in 
need and support efforts that we know have a proven record in improving 
educational achievement.
  For example, research has shown that smaller class size in grades K 
through 3 has a positive effect on students for their entire lives. The 
improved classroom discipline and reading and math skills provide a 
solid base for the child's continued education achievement.
  Research has also shown the benefits of after-school programs that 
promote safe and nurturing activities for young people during nonschool 
hours. These programs provide positive alternatives for kids who would 
otherwise be on the streets or alone with only the television set for 
company.
  After-school tutoring offers young people the extra help they may 
require to succeed in their classes. Organized sports allow the young 
people to expend their energy in a positive setting, building physical 
skills and endurance.
  Our schools also need help to improve teacher training, to modernize 
the school buildings which are in crying bad shape, to promote safe 
schools, and to challenge students to meet higher standards. But, 
unfortunately, this bill does not do any of that.
  Mr. Speaker, instead, H.R. 2646, at a cost of $2.2 billion over 5 
years, will provide a taxpayer subsidy to the Nation's most privileged; 
70 percent of its benefits will go to families with incomes in the top 
20 percent. Under H.R. 2646, families will get a significant benefit 
only if they have enough disposable income to contribute $2,000 per 
child per year to an education savings account. Families struggling 
just to put food on the table and buy school shoes for their kids will 
receive nothing from this bill.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation, with a majority of Republican 
members, estimates that the benefit for an average family would be only 
$37 a year if they have children in private schools and even less, $7 a 
year, for families with children in public schools. The $2.2 billion 
would be more usefully spent to improve our public schools.
  This bill is a favorite of some because it provides a foot in the 
door for public subsidy for nonpublic schools. In fact, more than 50 
percent of its benefits would go to the 7 percent of families who send 
their children to private and religious schools. That is only 7 percent 
of America's families.
  Public funds should be used to improve public schools which serve all 
students. We should not ask families struggling from paycheck to 
paycheck, those in the lower- and middle-income brackets, to subsidize 
families in the upper 20 percent income bracket. Taxpayer subsidies for 
private school education will lead to fewer available resources for the 
public schools which serve the 93 percent of our families.
  Mr. Speaker, in my district both the Monroe County School Board 
Association and the Rochester City Schools oppose this plan to shift 
public funding to private schools and parochial education. The National 
PTA, the National Education Association, the American Federation of 
Teachers, and the Council of Chief State School Officers all oppose 
H.R. 2646 because it will create taxpayer-financed subsidies for 
private and religious schools, while doing virtually nothing to improve 
America's public schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit 
the conference report with instructions to substitute H.R. 3320, the 
Public School Modernization Act. H.R. 3320 would pay the interest on 
$22 billion in local school bonds so that we could make sure our public 
schools are safe, have up-to-date equipment and facilities, and have 
enough classrooms for all their students.
  Mr. Speaker, America's public schools have been a model for the whole 
world, and we should work to strengthen them, not abandon them.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Rangel motion to 
recommit, and if that fails, to oppose the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification. This bill does not take 
away any current education dollars. This is over and above what we are 
currently spending, so nothing is being taken away.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. STARK).
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I had intended to speak later today on an 
issue of professionalism in the House of Representatives. It has seemed 
to have departed in 1994. The House is now, unfortunately, being run by 
amateurs who have really no concept of what legislation does in its 
far-reaching effects.
  A perfectly good example is this bill before us. While I happen to 
differ with the distinguished gentlewoman about the best way to support 
education, I respect her right to her opinions as to what will increase 
benefits to our children. The fact is that the gentlewoman's leadership 
has got this place so convoluted that her distinguished efforts today 
will not make any difference.
  My chairman of my subcommittee on which I serve, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), recently referred to a lot of Republican 
legislation as asinine. He was not just whistling Dixie.
  I want to suggest to the gentlewoman that a little later today, the 
gentlewoman is going to vote for a bill which will absolutely negate 
this bill that she is now proposing. Which does the gentlewoman want to 
do?
  Would she like to help parents with their savings account, as she so 
eloquently purports to do? Then I propose that the gentlewoman would 
join me in opposing the bill that her party will bring to the floor 
today, which will absolutely suspend the entire income tax system in 
2002 and, therefore, make her bill useless, meaningless.
  Not only will it make the gentlewoman's bill useless, she will 
probably not have any schools, because not only will sunsetting the 
income Tax Code mean that no longer will the public be willing to buy 
tax exempt bonds, because who knows whether, in fact, they will be tax 
exempt or taxed or how high they will be taxed; no longer will the 
public be willing to give, to donate to their church, because they are 
not sure whether that will be taxed or not.
  As a practical matter, we had better hurry up and die before the year 
2002 or our wills will not be any good. All of the plans that the 
financial markets

[[Page H4643]]

make, and I do not know if there are any Republicans who deal with the 
financial markets, I think these tax plans have all been designed in 
football huddles. But aside from that, had any of them studied 
economics and had any of them had any awareness of the implications of 
what abolishing the Tax Code would do?
  I have no quarrel that some people may pay too much tax; some people 
may pay too little in tax. Some people may not like cigarette taxes. 
Some people may not like gasoline taxes. All of those things can be 
debated. They can be debated in the context of what it will do to our 
country's economy.
  But the sheer lunacy, the absolute sophomoric inanity of taking and 
saying we are going to abolish the Tax Code, I would suggest that you 
might as well, while you are at it, abolish the Criminal Code. That 
would give some Members of Congress, and particularly on the Republican 
side, relief from some fines and some jail terms. But other than that, 
why not abolish it and say, well, in the year 2002, we will write a new 
Criminal Code, but in the meantime, go do what you want.
  So as we are sitting here debating a bill that might at the outset 
make some reasonable sense to people who want to support private 
schools at the expense of destroying public education, a reasonable 
debate that has been going on for some time, we are getting prepared, 
as we sit here this morning, to bring to the House of Representatives a 
bill that would, in effect, end the Tax Code.
  I understand that there are a great number of modern-day Pharisees 
who reside here in the House of Representatives and other types of 
conservatives who believe that we should have no income tax. Again, the 
most sensible of those who purport to do that have a replacement. They 
would suggest a value-added tax or a sales tax or a whole host of 
revenue raising. But none have been so lunatic in their approach as to 
say we should raise no revenue.
  It would be interesting to talk to the members of our fighting 
forces. The gentlewoman from New York and I just returned from Bosnia 
where we were proud to see our forces keeping peace. They might want, 
as well, to throw up their hands and go home. How do they know that 
they will get paid at the end of the 3 years if the Republican mind-set 
were to continue to control this Congress?
  This is the most amateurish approach. It is pandering, pandering in 
the worst conceivable way for a few votes in an election year, 
pandering about something which some people does not understand.
  It is clear that whoever drafted and will support this legislation to 
sunset the Tax Code has no idea of what they are doing. They are not 
qualified. There are not many qualifications to membership in this 
body, but I will tell you one of them ought to be to be able to count 
to 20 with your shoes and socks on. I am not sure that many of my 
Republican colleagues could pass that test when it comes to the 
economics of dealing with the Tax Code.
  So as we sit here in all solemn splendor and discuss whether we are 
going to help our children, we are just waiting for an hour or two, and 
we will be in this Chamber saying, let us vote to sunset the Tax Code.
  Can you imagine what is happening in Jakarta which is a result of 
basically a king destroying the economic system in Indonesia? This is 
exactly what will happen in the United States if this Republican 
provision prevails. The financial markets will suddenly awaken and 
realize that none of the contracts, none of our pensions can be 
depended upon. The very basis of all of our retirement income will 
collapse. The stock market will be in shambles.
  I want to suggest to you that if you want to create financial anarchy 
in this country, follow the Republican lead. There is a Republican-
mandated commission now that is talking about the future of Medicare, 
the future of Medicare. From where will the income come? From where 
will the taxes come? From where will the deductions come for the 
employers who are paying those taxes? This all disappears under this 
marvelous Republican leadership.
  What we are getting here is Dial-A-Prayer in the House of 
Representatives. Dial-A-Vote. Dial-A-Special-Interest. Dial-A-Special-
Interest and ask them what they would like to hear the government do, 
and we will bring it to the floor of the House without regard to the 
effect on the United States, on its children, on its families.
  Family values? Let me ask the gentlewoman how she would expect any 
person in the United States could sell their home in the next 3 years, 
realizing that the homeowner's interest deduction will disappear in 
2002.
  One of the mainstays of the American family is the right to buy and 
own a home. The value of homes will plummet as a result of this 
Republican-contrived cockamamy scheme to buy some attention from the 
right-wing wackos in this country who would say abolish the income Tax 
Code.
  So I say to my colleagues, while it may be of some interest to 
discuss, in all seriousness, how we can help our children get educated, 
we had better worry about whether our children will be able to sell 
apples on the street corner as children did in the bowels of the 
Depression, because with the Republicans in leadership, having no 
understanding of the basic tenets of economics, and leading this House 
in the most amateurish, asinine way, we will destroy this economy, 
destroy the values upon which the families are based, and lead us into 
a confused and distraught and archaic state in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues, please, to treat the upcoming tax sunset bill 
with all of the derision and scorn that it deserves. It is an 
amateurish bill, written and drafted by people who have not the 
foggiest concept of government, of how to govern, of economics, led by 
a leadership who is led around by the nose by extreme right-wing 
religious groups and right-wing wacko groups, and getting a vote a day 
on issues that some of their Members may have to run on in their 
districts.
  But I urge my colleagues to disdain any more of this foolishness in 
the House of Representatives. It brings discredit to this House. It 
brings discredit to those who would like, in all seriousness, to 
improve the lot of families, as the Democrats have been struggling to 
do.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on this 
bill, and vote absolutely, absolutely ``no'' on the rule on the income 
tax sunset and, by all means, just vote ``no'' on sunsetting the income 
tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say I believe that the 
gentleman from California's remarks were a little below the decorum of 
this House in making accusations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MYRICK. 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. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on the resolution are postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________