[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 80 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4727-H4739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2646, EDUCATION SAVINGS AND SCHOOL EXCELLENCE
ACT OF 1998
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 471, I call
up the conference report on 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Pursuant to the rule, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Monday, June 15, 1998, at page H4551.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
General Leave
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report on
H.R. 2646.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2646,
the
[[Page H4728]]
Coverdell A-plus Education Savings Account legislation. These new
education accounts will allow parents, grandparents, friends and others
to open an education IRA for a child's educational needs.
The accounts will encourage saving for the future. It moves us from
last year's post-secondary account down to a K-through-12 savings
account.
Some may ask why am I supporting it since it does not include the
testing prohibition language and the answer is very clear. In order to
prevent this legislation from getting bogged down in the Senate, we
took a different route.
Mr. Speaker, I have a letter of assurance from the Speaker and from
the Majority Leader of the Senate which make its very, very clear that
the text of the fiscal year 1999 Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education Appropriation bill, and any supplemental or any other such
legislation, will not, I quote, will not leave Congress without a
testing provision that I find to be satisfactory, which of course means
no test, no new national test.
If the appropriation bill, as I said, does not make it to the
President's desk, then every effort will be made to include this in a
continuing resolution or any other must-pass legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I will include a copy of the letter that I received from
the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader in the Record after my
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Lott for
their careful attention to this important issue. Senator Ashcroft and I
have labored long and hard to protect against top-down, Washington-
based testing. Senator Ashcroft's amendment and my testing prohibition
bill have passed the Senate and the House, respectively, on recorded
votes. Members are on record as opposing new Federal testing that is
not specifically authorized by Congress. With our leadership's help, we
will continue to pursue a ban on funding for the President's testing
plan during the appropriations process.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Archer) and the other conferees for their support in retaining the
Reading Excellence Act in the final conference report. This act, which
the administration now supports, will provide $210 million in funding
for new research, teacher training, and individual grants to help
improve K-through-12 reading instruction.
The act is the House Republican counterproposal to President
Clinton's America Reads program, which aims to send semi-trained
volunteers into the classroom. Our reading bill will bolster the
reading skills of children by providing more resources, research, and
training to teachers, not untrained volunteers.
I also want to state that there is a technical error in the report
regarding the participation of private schools in the program. I want
to assure my colleagues that we will do everything possible to correct
this error.
Mr. Speaker, a few of the other important education provisions
included in the final bill are: Incentive grants to schools that
produce academic excellence, public schools; incentive grants for
States that implement merit pay for teachers; the allowance of the use
of Federal dollars to be used for same-gender schools where comparable
educational opportunities are offered for students of both sexes; and
allowing weapons to be admitted as evidence in internal school
disciplinary proceedings.
Finally, I would note that the Gordon block grant proposal was
dropped from the bill, again in an effort to protect the bill from
getting bogged down in the other body. However, I expect the Committee
on Education and the Workforce will be taking action on some block
grant initiative in the future.
The letter referred to is as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1998.
Hon. Bill Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Ashcroft,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Gentlemen: We are grateful to the two of you for taking the
lead on requiring that testing of students remain at the
state and local level. The administration's proposal to
control student testing at the federal level necessarily
would result in government control of the curriculum.
Stopping this central government control of student testing
is a very important part of our Republican plan to return our
schools to the control of the parents and teachers at the
local level.
We have worked with you and voted with you to pass a
federal testing prohibition bill in the House and to add an
amendment to H.R. 2646, the Education Savings Act for Public
and Private Schools. Obviously, since this bill is under the
threat of a veto by the administration and a filibuster by
Senate Democrats, it does not serve our interests to pursue
the ban on federal testing in this bill.
Therefore, in order to ensure that Congress will pass and
send to the President a ban on federal testing, you have our
commitment to support inclusion of your testing prohibition
language (H.R. 2846/Amendment 2300 to H.R. 2646) in the base
text of the FY1999 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations bill. This language will be
maintained through floor action and the conference committee
process. You have our commitment that this bill will not
leave the Congress without a testing provision that you find
to be satisfactory.
If for some reason the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations
bill does not make it to the President's desk, then we will
support efforts to include this provision in any Continuing
Resolution(s), or other ``must pass'' legislation in both
bodies. We appreciate your leadership over the past months on
this most important issue and look forward to continuing to
work closely with you.
Sincerely,
Trent Lott.
Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am so surprised that my Republican friends on the
Committee on Ways and Means, the tax writing committee, have distanced
themselves so far from this bill. This is a tax bill. No one challenges
that this is a tax bill.
My Republican friends are saying that this code is so complicated, so
unfair, that it ought to be pulled up by its roots. And yesterday it
said after we get rid of President Clinton, we will get rid of the
code, which is good talk before an election. But if the code is so
complicated, why would the Republicans add this fertilizer to the roots
that they want to pull up?
This is supposed to be an education bill? What does it say? The
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), my good friend, never even
talked about that. He talked about all of the fine efforts that we have
to make to have our kids to read.
Mr. Speaker, let us talk taxes. Let us say what we are going to do
for the American parents here. Because the gentleman and I agree that
one of the most important things that we have to do to maintain
America's competitive position is to educate our young people so that
they will be able to meet the challenges of the next century.
So while all America is paused waiting to hear what is the Republican
plan to better equip our children, they send a man who knows how to
educate our children, who chairs the committee, who really sincerely
has proven over the years his dedication for educating our children,
they send him to this floor with a tax bill. So let us see the merits
of the tax bill.
Mr. Speaker, if an American child has an income less than $150,000,
this bill allows an account to be opened in the child's name.
{time} 1045
If the child has friends, relatives, corporate figures, or anybody
that loves this poor child enough, they can deposit into an account up
to $2,000. There is no provision in the bill of what happens if you do
not make the $2,000, but that is not important, because the government
does not give you the $2,000. The government gives you a tax-free
status on the interest. So if you are lucky, you can make, out of this
bill, anywhere between $7 a year upwards to $37 a year, depending on
your accounting system.
For those who do not want to complicate the code, what does this all
mean? It is an educational bill. It means that, out of the $2,000, you
can use this money to further the education of your child.
Let us take a closer look at the bill and find out. Is education
schools, the renovation of schools, the construction of schools? Does
it mean adding teachers to the school? Does it mean buying books and
equipment for the school? No, no, no, Mr. Rangel, this is a tax bill.
What do you expect in a tax bill? Oh, I got it. The bill says that
you can deduct and pay for, under this, if you
[[Page H4729]]
have a tutor for your child, or, if you do not have a tutor, if anyone
is teaching your child, or, if you do not have anyone to teach your
child, baby-sitting can be considered a part of instructing your child,
or it could be transportation for your child to school. You could pay
for the school bus. You could pay for the cab. You could pay for the
scooter bike to get there.
There are other provisions in this bill that perhaps make a lot more
sense, and that is that you can buy books. You can buy tablets. You can
buy pens and pencils for your children.
I do not know whether the rest of the family can use these things,
because, after all, this tax legislation means that these things have
to be bought for the child. So we have to make certain that you have
the school equipment on one side and what the parents would use on the
other side.
If you want to get a television set, because you can get a lot of
education on TVs these days, they have got educational channels, I
suspect we may have to get an opinion from the Internal Revenue
Service, that is, before you throw that out with the rest of the tax
code, to see whether you can buy a TV.
It is disgraceful. It is embarrassing. It is a terrible hoax to play
on the American people to have education associated in any way with
this bill. Let me tell you one of the reasons is because nobody has
given any thought to this thing. Has this thing gone to any committee
for consideration? Did we not have hearings on this? Were there
teachers coming down saying, for God's sake, pass this so that I can
educate the children, or were the parent-teacher associations marching
around the Capitol saying pass this education initiative?
My God, even the Republican National Committee is not supporting
this. But it is closer to election time. Legislation is more designed
for bumper stickers than it is to be passed into law. So the President,
in his wisdom, will not allow the Internal Revenue Service to have to
add this to the complicated code which my colleagues want to pull up by
the roots. The President will spare my colleagues the embarrassment of
having to administer this bill.
However, there are bills here that have been passed that make a lot
of sense. In my motion to recommit, I am going to ask that we give an
opportunity for Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives,
to do something constructive; and that is to ask the committee to go
back in and to commit themselves, not to tax laws, but to education, to
rebuild our schools, to vitalize our schools.
We need $172 billion for the new schools and to bring back our
decrepit schools. So let this be the last time before election that we
try to get bumper-sticker type of legislation.
When you say education, look somewhere and, instead of just bringing
the distinguished gentleman here who has dedicated his life to
education, if it is going to be taxes, bring the chairman from the
Joint Committee on Taxation, and let us talk about this bill and how
effective it is going to be.
Other than that, I want to see whether anybody else wants to stand up
and support this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield what time he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) from the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the
opportunity to appear here on behalf of this conference report. Let me
tell you why I think this is important. I believe very strongly that
families who save to put their kids through school, whether it is
primary, secondary school, or college, whether it is a private
institution or a public institution, should be able to save without
having those savings taxed.
It is not a big tax break. It is a very important principle that we
are beginning to enshrine in the law, and this conference committee
report moves strongly forward in that direction.
I believe anyone in this chamber who shares that principle and shares
that belief should be prepared to support this legislation. It is
perfectly consistent, I might add, with tax reform, because this is
just the beginning of the kind of tax change and tax incentive that tax
reform should enshrine more broadly in the tax code.
So we have heard some rhetoric here today from the opposition to this
legislation: disgraceful, embarrassing, fertilizer. Mr. Speaker, I am
going to leave the fertilizer on the other side of the aisle, and,
instead, rise in strong support of this conference committee report
that will promote education savings and promote education excellence.
This conference agreement will allow tax-free expenditures from
education IRAs for elementary and secondary school expenses as well as
higher education costs. The agreement would increase the maximum annual
amount of contributions for education IRAs to $2,000, which is what it
should have been in the first place.
One extremely important provision in this conference report addresses
the need for tax relief for prepaid tuition programs, an issue that I
have advocated since I came to this Congress. I believe that people
should be able to use State prepaid tuition programs for postsecondary
education without a tax penalty; that we move in the direction of
liberalizing the tax treatment of those programs.
This legislation will also allow both the contributions and earnings
on distributions from qualified State tuition programs to be tax free,
provided funds are used for higher education purposes.
In addition, private colleges or a group of private colleges may
ultimately offer similar prepaid tuition programs. I have long
advocated the equal treatment for private colleges and universities.
While we still have a ways to go to establish tax equity for these
schools, this recognition puts a mark in the law moving in that
direction.
There are several other important provisions in this conference
report, including the extension of section 127, employer provided
education assistance through 2002. That in itself makes this
legislation worth voting for, even if you do not agree or are not
enthusiastic with all of the other provisions.
Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation. It may be disgraceful or
embarrassing to the other side of the aisle to have this kind of bill
coming out under Republican authorship. I can tell you this, I think
this moves us in the right direction of making higher education more
affordable, of making basic education more easy to save for with a
better tax treatment.
We are moving in the right direction. I think it will be instructive
to see how many people in the end stand up against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to participate in this debate.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, it seems that the leadership of this House
has taken another poll; and in that poll, they discovered that the
people of this country are concerned about the quality of education
that their young family members are getting. So they come up with this
brilliant idea to provide a tiny little tax cut for private schools.
This tiny little tax cut would amount to somewhere in the
neighborhood of between $5 and $10 a year to families in my district.
That is not even enough to buy a single textbook. That is how
meaningless and disgraceful this piece of legislation is. Instead of
doing what we need to do, this offers a false hope to people.
We know what is wrong with education in our country. We know that we
need more teachers. This bill does not do a thing to provide more
teachers. We know that we need smaller class sizes. This legislation
does not do a thing to provide us with smaller class sizes.
We know that we need an infrastructure improvement program to build
classrooms and to upgrade schools and existing classrooms. So many of
the classrooms, most of them, are so old in this country, they cannot
even be wired for the Internet. They need a complete overhaul in the
wiring of the school system. This is what we need, and this is what the
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means is offering us in his
motion to recommit.
What this Congress ought to be doing is investing appropriate
resources to reduce class sizes, to educate more teachers, and, most of
all, to build the classrooms and build the schools and
[[Page H4730]]
upgrade the system so that we can modernize our schools, modernize our
classrooms so that we can modernize education in America. That is what
the motion to recommit would do.
The bill before us would do none of that. That is why we need to vote
for the motion to recommit and defeat the legislation.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania
for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. What
is terrific about this conference report is it not only helps public
schools, but it also helps private and parochial schools in the
district that I represent.
I represent the south suburbs of Chicago, and we are fortunate to
have a very strong Catholic school system in Joliet in the south
suburbs as well as other faith-based and also public schools. This
legislation helps both. That is what is really great about this
legislation. We are helping all sorts of families, and we are helping
all sorts of parents who make different choices for their kids. I
realize there is some that do not want to do that, and that is why they
oppose this bill.
As I look at what you can do if you set aside $2,000 a year in this
education savings account, I think of the parents and public school
kids who are faced with fees for textbooks and faced with whether they
need to buy a laptop computer so their son or daughter can do better in
a public school.
Of course, as a result of these savings accounts, they have a
mechanism where they can set aside money just like an IRA and use that
to meet these costs of local, public education. Of course, the kids
that go to the Catholic school system in Joliet would benefit as well.
That is good.
We raised those contribution limits from the current $500 to $2,000,
allowing the family to set aside up to $10,000 by the time a child is
ready to enter first grade.
We are concerned about public education. This legislation also makes
a pretty good commitment. Right now, only 70 cents on the dollar of
every Federal education dollar that we appropriate actually reaches the
classroom. That means almost 30 cents of every education dollar that we
appropriate here in Washington is consumed by the bureaucracy in
Washington before it reaches the classroom.
This legislation makes a commitment to raise that to 95 cents on the
dollar so that the money that we spend and provide to help public
education back home actually reaches the classroom. That is a pretty
important goal.
I also look at another provision which was also, I think, pretty
significant. This legislation allows private colleges and universities
to offer prepaid tuition programs that will benefit the students that
go to Olivet Nazarene University in Kankakee County as well as Saint
Francis and Lewis.
This is good legislation. It helps public schools, and it helps
private schools. It deserves bipartisan support.
{time} 1100
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the conference
report.
Today, we are being treated to yet another episode in the continuing
Republican saga of tax relief for the rich. It is also known as Robin
Hood in reverse; take from the poor to give to the rich. When we look
behind all the rhetoric, what we find is that the people who benefit
from this bill are not everyday citizens. They only get about $7 a year
out of this bill. The people who benefit are, again, the wealthiest 20
percent of Americans.
There is nothing wrong with private schools. There is nothing wrong
with savings accounts. I think it is a great idea. What is wrong is
when we take tax dollars away from public education, and that is what
this bill does. Tax relief for the rich.
We have some problems in education. If the Republicans were serious
about dealing with education, they would look inside our public school
systems. Ninety percent of the students in America go to public
schools. Sixty percent of Americans think we here in Congress ought to
be spending more money on public education. It would seem to me that
what we ought to be doing is putting our money where the students are:
in public education.
How should we do this? There is a Democratic alternative that says,
number one, we need smaller classes in grades 1 through 3. We need to
reduce class size by hiring more teachers. I think that is a good idea.
We need to build our infrastructure. We need to repair our schools. We
have schools that have asbestos problems. We have schools with leaking
roofs. About a third of all the schools in America have major repair
problems that need to be addressed, not by some savings account gimmick
but by a serious commitment of Federal funds for public education.
We also need to invest in our public schools by enabling them to have
access to the Internet. Fifty percent of our schools are not capable of
being wired to the Internet because they cannot accommodate the new
technology. We need to address that infrastructure concern.
So when we talk about aid to education, there are two ways to go. We
can go the way of tax relief for the rich or we can look at a serious
commitment to repairing our education infrastructure. That is the
approach the Democrats embody in their motion to recommit.
I urge rejection of the conference report. I urge adoption of the
motion to recommit.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I am somehow puzzled over and over again as I listen to comments from
the other side of the aisle, and I just listened to our previous
colleague say that this takes dollars away from public education. That
is totally, totally false, and he must know it if he has read the bill.
Not $1 in this bill is taken away from public education. But we listen
to this rhetoric spoken over and over again, on issue after issue, and
I am sure that many Members might believe some of it. It just happens
to not be true.
What this bill does do is give parents an opportunity to save for
their children's education, which they already have the opportunity to
do so, and spend that money on college education. Those programs have
not destroyed the public universities of this country, nor have they
taken $1 away from the public universities to put into private
universities. But for some reason, the Members on the other side of the
aisle want to make people believe that what we are doing here today
will destroy public elementary and secondary education.
And nothing could be farther from the truth because all of the
evaluations of this bill are that the savings that parents will put
freely into accounts for their children will be used 75 percent for
children in public education and only 25 percent for children who go to
private schools. Now, that is the Congressional Budget Office's
analysis of this bill.
So let us get the facts straight. These savings accounts can be used
to help children with disabilities, whether they are in public school
or in private school, for their special needs. These savings can be
used for tutors to help children in public schools, who desperately
need it, in those schools that are not attaining the same levels as we
see in many other schools.
And, by the way, we should not forget that most American children are
getting an outstanding education. And thanks to local school boards,
good teachers and smart kids, many Americans receive a world class
education. And that is one of the reasons why our Nation is the envy of
the world, and we should all be proud of it. But, yes, it is true that
there are other schools that are not attaining that same level and we
need to be concerned about it.
But when I listen to the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle, I
wonder, what am I really hearing? Am I hearing rhetoric that has been
prompted by large, powerful special interests or by a concern for the
children of this country? I wonder. Why do they not want choice for
children in elementary and secondary education? Oh, they are
[[Page H4731]]
happy to give it in college. Why do they not want it for children in
elementary and secondary education? I wonder. Why do they not want a
higher degree of personal responsibility and local control of our
elementary and secondary schools, rather than having greater and
greater Federal intrusion which ultimately will take away that
flexibility? Again, I wonder.
This is a good bill. It permits parents to do what we already permit,
savings for college education, and gives those parents the opportunity
to also use that funding, where necessary, to help their children in
elementary and secondary education get a better opportunity and end up
being better equipped to go out into this world.
Despite how helpful this plan is for children's education, I know
President Clinton is under intense pressure from special interests to
oppose our bipartisan plan. And I say to the President, ``Mr.
President, do not veto this bill. Do not put the needs of 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 and elementary schools?''
And if HOPE scholarships do not destroy public universities, why
would educational savings accounts harm public high schools? They will
not. They simply will not. But they will give another tool, not a
complete answer to all of educational problems, but another tool to
help parents secure a better education for their children. And that is
why many Democrats, including Senator Torricelli and former Congressman
Floyd Flake support this bill, because it is good for our children.
This legislation also expands the definition of ``qualified tuition
program'' under the present law provision granting qualified State
prepaid tuition plans favorable tax treatment to prepaid tuition plan
sponsored by private educational institutions. Because of revenue
constraints, we were not able to make this change effective
immediately. However, in making this change, no inference was intended
as to the treatment of certain prepaid tuition plans sponsored by
private institutions under present law.
I urge a vote against the motion to recommit and a vote for this
conference report, which will begin a pattern of helping to develop
better education for our children.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
agree with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, and say that he is right, that the cost of this bill is not
taking away from appropriations for the public schools. This is not an
education bill. This is a tax bill, and he is right, it does give tax
cuts to those people that have enough money to deposit in a bank
account.
And I have to admit that the chairman is right when he says that we
are driven by special interests. That special interest are those very
special children who need so badly to get a decent education. And so,
once again, I agree with my chairman. But perhaps we do not end up at
the same place, at the same time, with the same bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Ford).
(Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
To my dear friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means, I would remind
him, as he talks about special interests, that it was yesterday in the
United States Senate where our majority leader in the Senate and others
rejected a tobacco bill that was sponsored by Mr. McCain and which many
Democrats and Republicans had worked so tirelessly on. It was special
interests, namely cigarette makers, that caused us to reject that bill
and might cause us to retard public health efforts on behalf of
children in this Nation.
But I rise in opposition to this conference report. I would agree
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that reform is needed
sorely in our public school system, in our education system in America.
But if we listen to educators and we listen to parents and we listen to
students, they talk tirelessly about the need to have more teachers in
schools, about reducing class sizes.
I come from a district where the average class size is 35 pupils per
teacher. I come from a district where, in the final 2 weeks of school,
3 dozen schools had to close early because they had no air-
conditioning. The only reason they stayed open for half the day was to
still qualify for funding, Mr. Speaker, for state funding for their
school system for the following year.
Without a doubt, all we are talking about as Democrats will not solve
all the problems. But, clearly, savings accounts will not do it alone.
Thomas Jefferson said that any Nation which expects to be free and
ignorant at the same time, expects what never was and never will be.
Let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, and do what is right
for our kids, do what is right for parents, do what is right for
America.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last year the President signed
with great fanfare the Taxpayer Relief Act, which allowed parents to
invest up to $500 of their own money in education savings accounts to
help send their kids to the college of their choice.
Now we are asking the President to give these same parents the
ability to use that same money for elementary and high school expenses
as well. And this bill gives parents, grandparents and friends the
ability to invest up to $2,000 to send their children to the best
schools available, from kindergarten through college.
I do not know about the President, but we should want every child to
succeed. We ought to give him that chance. It is the American way. With
this additional flexibility, parents can send their children to the
safest, most academically challenging schools in America. But the
President says he is going to veto this pro-family, pro-education bill
because he cares more about the teachers' unions than the children
stuck in bad schools.
This bill has strong bipartisan support and it is time for our
President to give every child in America the same chance to succeed
that his daughter was given. We must pass this conference report.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey), who has dedicated her political career to
improving the quality of education for our young people.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), our leader on this important issue, for yielding me this time.
And I rise in strong opposition to this conference report and in
support of the school modernization motion.
My colleagues, just come visit some of the schools in our
communities. The classrooms are overflowing and the students are trying
to learn in hallways. Is Congress addressing this crisis? No. The
leadership of this Congress has chosen, instead, to push through a
flawed bill that will please their favorite special interests but do
practically nothing for the majority of American families. The solution
is not an arcane tax change, it is investing in education.
Last year, 120 Members of this Congress showed their commitment to
America's children by cosponsoring the Partnership to Rebuild America's
Schools. This session we have a similar proposal, which the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I and others introduced, 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, and the Federal Government will pay the interest on these
bonds.
My colleagues, we simply cannot ignore the poor physical conditions
of our schools any longer. The GAO found that $112 billion is needed
nationwide to just bring our schools into adequate condition. Rural,
suburban and urban districts all face serious problems. It is
[[Page H4732]]
common sense. Children cannot learn in severely overcrowded schools and
when classroom walls are falling down around them.
In New York, where the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I
come from, a survey my office conducted found that 25 percent, one in
four, of New York City public schools hold classes in bathrooms, locker
rooms, hallways, cafeterias and storage areas. Almost half of our
school buildings have roofs, floors and walls in need of repair.
A report by the New York City Commission on School Facilities
revealed some startling realities: nearly half of the City's school
children are taught in severely overcrowded classrooms. Two hundred and
seventy schools need new roofs. Over half of the City's schools are
more than 55 years old, and approximately one-fourth still use coal
burning boilers.
Quite recently, Congress overwhelmingly passed a $200 billion bill to
build and maintain our nation's highways. I support this investment.
But shouldn't we also be investing in the future of our children?
Regrettably, the Republican leadership has time and time again refused
to support efforts to rebuild our schools.
This bill is the wrong approach. Investing in our schools is the
right one. Support the school modernization motion. It is time that we
come to the aid of our schools and our children.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and support the
motion to recommit.
{time} 1115
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference
report for the Educational Savings Act.
I am especially gratified that the report includes $1.5 billion in
tax cuts for students enrolled in state prepaid tuition plans. And I
thank my chairman the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for his help
with this.
Last year, in the Balanced Budget Act, we cut taxes by $2 billion for
these families. Now this report wisely gives further tax relief to
those families who are investing for their children's future.
Unfortunately, it sounds like the President is going to veto this
bill. That would be a real shame, Mr. President. These tax cuts would
help over 3,000 Kentucky students to attend college. Their families
have already invested over $7 million in our state prepaid tuition
plan, and I think we need to do what we can to help them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for the conference report and for these
students who need our help.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I, too, rise in opposition to the conference report, the so-called
education savings account legislation. This bill is simply private
school vouchers by another name. Who do we think is going to be taking
advantage of these accounts? Not the majority of our parents, who have
little left after their monthly expenses. These IRA type accounts will
obviously favor privileged families who are more likely to have more
money to put into the account.
This bill will be an encouragement for well-to-do families to send
their children to private schools, offering taxpayer financial
subsidies for private schools, while doing nothing, nothing, Mr.
Speaker, to improve America's public schools.
This bill diverts urgently needed funds from our public schools.
Opposite to the thrust of this legislation, we should be passing
Federal legislation to direct our limited resources into public
schools, where over 90 percent of American children are educated.
Instead of subsidized education for the wealthy, we need to put our
resources toward reducing class size in our public schools, modernizing
and refurbishing our public schools and improving teacher training for
our public schools.
As Julian Bond, Chairman of the Board of the NAACP, said recently, we
should not take Federal dollars out of public education just when it
needs help the most. This bill is just the latest in a long series of
attempts to benefit the wealthy and to do nothing to help our middle
class and lower income families.
As a matter of conscience and in support of the vast majority of
Americans and their children, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-
conceived legislation.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, one does not have to be a rocket scientist,
one does not have to be an economics professor to know that many
families today are struggling to pay their child's college education.
Both sides of the aisle would agree with that.
In fact, college tuitions have increased 234 percent since 1980. Now,
this prices many families out of a college education. Others have had
to go deep in debt to send their children to college.
As a matter of fact, parents and children attending college have
borrowed more money for college education in the 1990's than in the
1960's, 1970's, and 1980's.
Now, I was an elected member of the Alabama State School Board, and
we were faced with this problem in Alabama, one of our poorer states,
people unable to send their children to college. And we were one of the
first 3 states to devise a prepaid tuition plan where parents could put
away a little money each month and when their children reached college
age they could take that fund and then pay for their college tuition.
I am glad to say today that 43,000 Alabama children are enrolled in
our prepaid college tuition plan. 18 other states have made similar
moves and have prepaid tuition plans.
We have heard about Kentucky from the gentleman from Kentucky. And it
is my understanding that most other states expect to start their own
plans in the near future and these plans will help make college a
reality for many, many children.
It is because of that that I rise today in strong support for this
conference report, for this conference report is good news for all
those families and all those children enrolled in those prepaid tax
plans.
There was bipartisan support for this provision, a provision which I
introduced originally in this Congress 2 years ago and again last year
and has been included in the conference report which makes savings and
state prepaid tuition plans tax free. Can we all not agree that no tax
makes less sense than one that punishes families for saving for their
children's college education?
We should be rewarding families who save for their child's college
education, not penalizing then. The current law penalizes them. When
they draw that money out, they have to pay taxes on it. This conference
report changes that.
For that reason, I congratulate the conferees and I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
conference report and in support of the motion to recommit. There is no
question that parents have the right to choose the best possible
education for their children. Unfortunately, this bill does not
accomplish this goal.
Instead of opening doors to a better education for all of America's
working families, this bill primarily benefits a small percentage of
families who could afford to save as much as $2,000 a year and send
their children to private schools. To meet the needs of the majority of
American children, we do not need another tax shelter for the wealthier
Americans, what we need is to invest our scarce Federal resources in
our public schools, where over 90 percent of American children are
taught.
Our Nation's public schools need funds for books, computers, and
well-trained teachers and they critically need funding for repairs and
school construction in urban and rural communities where our public
schools are overcrowded and literally falling apart.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our public
schools are in worse shape today than any part
[[Page H4733]]
of our Nation's infrastructure. And based on current growth, it is
estimated that we will need to build 6,000 new schools over the next 10
years just to maintain current class size.
The motion of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) addresses this
crisis by creating a tax credit to help state and localities build new
schools and make desperately needed repairs. Investing in our public
schools benefits all of America's children, not just a few.
I ask my colleagues to defeat the conference report.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset, what the American people
want and need for their children and what this Congress wants and needs
for the children of America with respect to education is exactly the
same thing. We need to have the most effective public school system in
the world.
I believe that it was not very many years ago when we could stand up
proudly in this Nation and say that. I believe when I was a child going
through public schools that this Nation could stand up and say before
the world, we have the best, most accessible public education for the
children of America than any nation in the history of the world. I
believe at that time in America we were in fact the envy of the world
for what we were able to do and were in fact doing in the education of
our children.
But something has changed, Mr. Speaker. Something has changed, and it
is a matter of enormous concern and heartbreak to the American people.
We cannot say that anymore. And our children are paying the cost. We
are not concerned here with children who fail in school so much as we
are concerned with schools that are failing America.
And while throughout America we still have some fine examples of good
schools, public and private, where the parents are pleased and the
children are proud and the teachers are caring, we need to cherish them
and we need to have a way to get them to be more a model for the other
schools.
Because tragically, Mr. Speaker, we have schools in America that are
failing the children. We have got to ask ourselves what is missing
here. Why is it that some schools can succeed and so many other schools
can fail, sometimes a school with a lesser budget can succeed? It is
not always about money. I think it is about something more important
than money. I think it is about a lot of things.
This bill that we have before us today is about one of the things.
And if anybody thought, and certainly I do not, that this was the
entire solution to the problem, they would be naive. But part of the
solution is accountability. When schools are accountable to parents,
schools do better.
How do parents make a school accountable to them? Well, first through
local control. When the parents in their local community elect a school
board and hold a school board accountable, as a school is held
accountable by the school board, it works. But also by direct control.
When the school administrator and the teachers know that the parents
can and will and have the resources to pick up their child, take the
child from the school that is letting the child down and put that child
into school where the child will do better, it perks up their
attention. They realize the need.
One principal not too far from Washington, D.C., when faced with
parents that had choices and were using those choices to move their
children, said very clearly, ``we have got to do better or we will lose
the children.''
Now, what does this bill say? It says to some of those parents, if
you have the means to save your own money so that you can in your own
savings put together a scholarship opportunity for your child and move
your child, you should get a tax break for that, the earnings from that
savings should be tax exempt.
We have had other bills on this floor, bills that were equally
resistant, that said to some parents of low incomes, if you do not have
those means, we will provide with you scholarships. They, too, were
resistant.
We are not here to defend the public schools. Of course, we know they
are all precious. But we are here to improve the public schools. We are
here to give them the opportunity to see the challenge that lies before
them and respond to it in a meaningful way by emphasizing to them
through the actions of the parents that they must be accountable to the
parents and the service in the lives of the children.
Why should we trust the parents, Mr. Speaker? Very simple. The
parents are and will be and always have been the first best most
dedicated teacher in that young child's life. Nobody cares more. Nobody
lives more with the consequences of that child's education other than
the child himself. And when the parents are able to affirm that, the
schools will respond to it and we will again some day have the best
public schools in the world, what our children deserve.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on this House to reject the
conference report on the latest voucher bill.
{time} 1130
Make no mistake about it. This is a bad bill. We have heard talk
about all kinds of things. It really is about a voucher bill and it is
not about the good things that happen in our public schools. There are
a lot of good schools. I am so tired of coming and hearing people bad-
mouth our teachers and bad-mouth our schools. That is why I ran to come
here, and I really thought I would see the rhetoric change. I am sorry
to say that from some in this body, it has not changed.
As a former elected chief of North Carolina's public schools, I know
that using taxpayers' money to finance private school tuition is the
wrong way to improve public schools in this country. It will absolutely
not do it. This bill takes the taxpayers' money, almost $2 billion, to
subsidize private schools at the expense of our neighborhood public
schools who badly need the money, and that is wrong.
I call on this Congress to pass legislation to address the school
construction crisis in this country. I will not go over the details. My
colleagues have already heard them. I have introduced H.R. 3652. There
are other bills that will provide revenue from this voucher bill to be
used for school construction bonds in some of the fastest growing and
most critically needed communities in this country.
If we want to help public schools, do something about it and quit
talking about it and put the money out there to help children and not
to help a select few but help all of them because all of them are part
of this great country we call America.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just state out front that I have heard repeatedly
that this is going to take money away from public education. I just
urge those who are curious to read the bill and determine and find out
for themselves that this does not take money away from public
education. Indeed what it does is serve to improve education. Clearly
there has been no stronger fighter in my mind than I am in this
Congress, and before this I was elected to the New York City Council
and served on the Education Committee and continually fought to improve
education for the people of my community in Staten Island and Brooklyn
and across this country.
In the last couple of weeks, we have seen, I guess, a critical point
in terms of discussing the future of education, and, if you will, a
line in the sand has been drawn. Our majority leader the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey) introduced a bill to provide, as he stated earlier,
to the low-income people of Washington, D.C., 2,000 scholarships. There
were parents who prayed that they would actually be able to send their
child to a school of their choice. This House passed that legislation.
It was quietly vetoed by the President,
[[Page H4734]]
thereby depriving some of those most vulnerable out there the
opportunity to send their kid to a school of their choice.
Now we have another great opportunity before us today. Here we again
continue to question the common sense of ordinary Americans. We just
throw it out there, folks. Is it the folks here in Washington or the
folks in your local towns, whether it is Capitol Hill or your State
capital or city hall that is in the best position to determine where to
send your child? Or is it the parents of America? All this bill does is
allows the parents the opportunity that they have been deprived of for
far too many years to send their child to the school of their choice so
that they can invest in their most precious resource, their children.
If we really believe in the future of this country and we believe in
education, we will pass this conference report.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us is what
the Republican agenda for education boils down to: providing education
tax credits for a limited population of parents who chose and have the
money to send their children to private schools versus helping the 90
percent of the students that are in public schools today, 90 percent,
which is where the educational future of the Nation will be determined.
Public schools face much pressure from the growing rates of
enrollment, large class size, increased violence and finding qualified
teachers. As they face all of these pressures, we need to make sure
they have the capability to impart knowledge and learning skills to our
children. That is not what this bill does. I do not understand how
taking money away from public schools provides for accountability. With
limited resources, teaching children is not easy to do. We have an
obligation to see that the schools do their job, but this bill
certainly does not do it.
In New Jersey, my home State, we have schools in crucial need of
modernization as reported by the New Jersey Supreme Court. I have
visited public schools throughout the State. I have seen the crumbling
ceilings, the exposed pipes, the fading blackboards, the lack of
ability to connect to the new technology that will make us competitive
in the next century. These tours indicate that we simply cannot ignore
the needs of our students any longer when it comes to the poor physical
condition of our schools.
New Jersey public elementary and secondary schools will see an
increase of over 100,000 students in the next 10 years requiring over
4,000 more new classrooms or else we will have even greater class
sizes. We know that over a thousand of our schools are over 50 years
old, many more from the turn of the century, and these statistics are
replicated across the country. This bill does nothing to meet the needs
of those schools or those students.
Let us vote for the Rangel motion to recommit so we can help our
public schools, where 90 percent of the public's interest and the
educational future of the Nation will be served. That is the way we
should be voting. Vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, is it not a little bit ironic that
yesterday the House voted to repeal the Federal income tax code and yet
today we are going to vote on legislation to create yet another
loophole in the income tax code. We are kind of going in the wrong
direction.
My dear colleague from Texas, the majority leader, I think put it
best about this legislation when he said, ``If you have the means.''
That is what this is about. This legislation is not going to help
middle-class families. It is not going to help families that are
struggling, that may be in difficult school districts. It is going to
help families that have the means to set aside $2,000 a year which they
are going to have to let sit for a while until they get enough income
to pay for private schools. This is a band-aid approach to a real
problem.
The gentleman from New York has an approach to try and address the
school problem for a larger number of American students and that is the
approach we ought to be taking. This is nothing but a tax break for
people who are not asking for it and who do not need it, and we do not
even know how we are going to pay for it. I am afraid this is a
precursor to what we are going to see with Social Security and
everything else, is if you have the means, you are okay but if you do
not, you are on your own.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
conference report. This bill is yet another attempt by the Republican
leadership to gut public education and tear desperately needed dollars
away from our public schools. The legislation will do nothing to
improve the education of millions of middle- and working-class kids in
this country. The average middle-class family would find itself with a
measly $10 benefit a year, not nearly enough for a working family to
afford the cost of a private high school.
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 computers for our classrooms. That is what the motion to recommit
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) does. If we are serious
about improving education in our country, we will reject the dangerous
bill before us. Passing this bill is like waving a white flag. Passing
the bill means giving up on public education, abandoning millions of
children who only want that opportunity to succeed. Having a chance in
America means having access to a first-rate education.
Let us not turn our backs on these children. Let us deal with
legislation that helps America's children, not just a token few. Reject
the conference report. Vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our distinguished minority
leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the conference
report, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Rangel motion to recommit. I
believe with all my heart that this issue, education and child rearing,
is the most important issue that faces us as a people. We have never
needed more in our history to have well-educated, mentally capable
young people.
In my home State of Missouri, the only issue that really dominated
the State legislature was how we could go from 30,000 to 60,000 prison
cells over the next 5 years, a symbol of failure of our child rearing
and our education system in this country.
I am tough on law and order and so are my constituents. But I say to
my constituents, you cannot afford what we are doing. We cannot afford
to hold a million and a half people in prison, to carry them, to keep
them because they are unsafe to have in our society. We also know that
if we raise children correctly, they will not get into trouble. They
will not be dysfunctional citizens. But we also know our society has
changed dramatically. People are not at home to raise children as they
once were. That is a fact of life. We are not going to change that. And
so we have to put the investment into education so that children are
raised correctly.
What this bill misses entirely is that there is a whole revolution
going on out in public schools to fix the schools to meet the need. In
my district, I have a school in the inner city that is getting great
results. The kids get great grades. I went there and I asked them how
they are doing it. They said, we have parents as first teachers in the
public school to teach parents how to be better parents and how to
raise children. They have preschool in the public school. They have
after-school in the public school, so children are engaged even at age
zero, age 6 months, age 1 year, age 3 years in constructive,
professionally run activities so they can be productive citizens when
they come out of the education process.
Does this bill support that effort that is going on in Shepherd
School in my district? I daresay not. What this bill offers is $7 a
year to the families that
[[Page H4735]]
are sending those kids to Shepherd School. No, what Shepherd School
needs is not this bill. This is a silly bill. It is a frivolous bill.
It is not serious about public education. Seven dollars a year to
families in my district fighting to get their kids a good education is
frivolous.
The Rangel substitute would offer real help to the people at Shepherd
School. What do they need? They need bigger classrooms. They need a
competent building. They need computers in the classrooms. They need
help, real help. Listen to Paul Vallas, CEO of the Chicago Public
Schools. This is somebody that is on the line every day. Mayor Daley in
Chicago said, ``Give me the schools, give me the responsibility, and we
will fix them,'' and he is fixing them. He put his best person on this
job. Here is what Paul Vallas says. He says this bill, the Coverdell
bill, is really designed to give more affluent people compensation for
decisions they already made to go private. That is all it is. This does
not help public education. It does not help the people that are out
there in the crucible of the fight to fix public education. It helps
just a few people who have already chosen to send their kids to private
schools. What a shame this is. What a missed opportunity this is.
I urge Members to vote for the Rangel substitute, which gives real,
tangible help to the real revolution that is going on out there in the
real world to fix the public schools so all of our kids are productive
citizens, and vote against a frivolous, unserious, ridiculous piece of
legislation that does nothing but help the privileged few.
{time} 1245
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
First of all, I want to make sure everybody understands it does not
take 1 penny from public education. If it did, I would not support it.
But secondly, all these people who are down here now crying about how
much we need, how much help we need to repair schools, to reduce class
size.
For 20 years I sat here in the minority and said, ``Would you put
your money where your mouth is on your one mandate, your curriculum
mandate for special education where you would get millions and millions
of dollars into school districts, where the pairs are needed,'' and I
could not get 1 penny from that majority.
Now they talk about trying to do something to help public schools.
Well, let me tell them, if we put our 40 percent of excess costs into
special education, which is where the mouth was, but the money was not
put there, Los Angeles school district would get an additional $74
million. New York City would get about $50 million. Chicago would get
$40 million. Just in 1 year, just in 1 year, and they talk about coming
here, telling us they are doing a dispirited kind of thing. They are
not helping public education.
I have tried, I have tried, I have tried to get them to put their
money where their mouth was for 20 years, and then we would not have
the problems we have with school districts where buildings are falling
down and where classes are way too large.
So I would remind everyone there is not 1 penny going to public
schools in this bill except in reading excellence. They talk about
helping schoolchildren. If 40 percent of the children are not doing
well in reading in public schools by the end of third grade, what do we
do about it? Not what the President wanted, but he got an agreement
with the Committee on the Budget that said that much money would be put
there. We rewrote the bill in a bipartisan manner to help those
children because, if 40 percent are not doing well, obviously we have
to start with teacher training. Obviously we have to deal with the lack
of ability of the parent to help the child become reading ready.
Obviously we have to deal with reading readiness programs before the
child comes to school.
So let us put our money where our mouth is, and then we can solve all
of those problems back in the local level because the millions those
districts that need it the most would get is just unbelievable, and
that is just in 1 year.
So I would encourage my colleagues, this is one step, and the second
step is to do the funding in the special ed mandate that we promised we
would do, and then we can make the changes, not by having more
programs. That is what we have done those 20 years. Everybody came with
another program. They watered them down to the point where we got
pennies here, pennies there if there was someone that could fill out
the appropriate papers in order to get the grant in the first place.
Nobody ever said anything about quality. Nobody ever said anything
about the problems that they had back in the local districts. We said
we know from the Federal level this is the way it should be done, do
it, and send them pennies to do it.
So let us start with this little piece today and let us really work
on how to help local school districts take care of the needs they have
as far as buildings are concerned, as far as reading readiness is
concerned, as far as class size is concerned. They can do it, if we
give them the money that we promised them 25 years ago.
So I would ask all to support this legislation, and then let us move
forward to do the things that have to be done to make sure those public
schools that may not be doing as well as they should be, and I will be
the first to say that most public schools are doing well, but those
that are not, we can give them the kind of help that they need.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I
oppose the Conference Report of the Parent and Student Saving Account
Act (H.R. 2646). This, despite having been an original cosponsor, and
having been quite active in seeking support, of the original House
bill. I remain a strong supporter of education IRAs, which are a good
first step toward restoring parental control of education by ensuring
parents can devote more of their resources to their children's
education. However, this bill also raises taxes on businesses and
expands federal control of education. I cannot vote for a bill that
raises taxes and increases federal power, no matter what other salutary
provisions are in the legislation.
I certainly support the provision allowing parents to contribute up
to $2,000 a year to education savings accounts without having to pay
taxes on the interest earned by that account. This provision expands
parental control of education, the key to true education reform as well
as one of the hallmarks of a free society. Today the right of parents
to educate their children as they see fit is increasingly eroded by the
excessive tax burden imposed on America's families by Congress.
Congress then rubs salt in the wounds of America's hardworking,
taxpaying parents by using their tax dollars to fund an
unconstitutional education bureaucracy that all too often uses its
illegitimate authority over education to undermine the values of these
same parents!
I also support the provisions extending the exclusion of funds
received from qualified state tuition programs, and excluding monies
received from an employer to pay for an employee's continuing education
from gross income. Both of these provisions allow Americans to spend
more of their resources on education, rather than hand their hard-
earned money over to the taxman.
Returning control over educational resources to the American people
ought to be among Congress' top priorities. In fact, one of my
objections to this bill is that is does not go nearly far enough in
returning education dollars to parents. This is largely because the
deposit to an education IRA must consist of after-tax dollars. Mr.
Speaker, education IRAs would be so much more beneficial if parents
could make their deposits with pretax dollars. Furthermore, allowing
contributions to be made from pretax dollars would provide a greater
incentive for citizens to contribute to education IRAs for others'
underprivileged children.
Furthermore, education IRAs are not the most effective means of
returning education resources to the American people. A much more
effective way of promoting parental choice in education is through
education tax credits, such as those contained in H.R. 1816, the Family
Education Freedom Act, which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for
elementary and secondary expenses incurred in educating a child at
public, private, parochial, or home schools. Tax credits allow parents
to get back the money they spent on education, in fact, large tax
credits will remove large numbers of families from the tax roles!
Therefore, I would still support this bill as a good first (albeit
small) step toward restoring
[[Page H4736]]
parental control of education if it did not further expand the federal
control of education and raise taxes on American businesses!
In order to offset the so-called ``cost to government'' (revenue
loss) H.R. 2646 alters the rules by which businesses are taxed on
employee vacation benefits. While I support efforts to ensure that tax
cuts do not increase the budget deficit, the offset should come from
cuts in wasteful, unconstitutional government programs, such as foreign
aid and corporate welfare. Congress should give serious consideration
to cutting unconstitutional programs such as ``Goals 2000'' which runs
roughshod over the rights of parents to control their children's
education, as a means of offsetting the revenue loss to the treasury
from this bill. A less than 3% cut in the National Endowment for the
Arts budget would provide more funding than needed for the education
IRA section of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have no moral nor scientific means by
which to determine which Americans are most deserving of tax cuts. Yet,
this is precisely what Congress does when it raises taxes on some
Americans to offset tax cuts for others. Rather than selecting some
arbitrary means of choosing which Americans are more deserving of tax
cuts, Congress should cut taxes for all Americans.
Moreover, because we have no practical way of knowing how many
Americans will take advantage of the education IRAs, or the other
education tax cuts contained in the bill, relative to those who will
have their taxes raised by the offset in this bill, it is quite
possible that H.R. 2646 is actually a backdoor tax increase! In fact,
the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation
would have increased revenues to the Treasury by $24 million over the
next eight years!
It is a well-established fact that any increase in taxes on small
businesses discourages job creation and, thus, increases unemployment!
It is hard to see how discouraging job creation by raising taxes is
consistent with the stated goal of H.R. 2646--helping America's
families!
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only raises taxes instead of decreasing
spending, it increases the federal role in education. For example the
conference report on H.R. 2646 creates a new federal program to promote
literacy, the so-called Reading Excellence Act. This new program bribes
the states with monies illegitimately taken from the American people,
to adapt programs to teach literacy using methods favored by
Washington-based ``experts.''
Mr. Speaker, enactment of this literacy program will move America
toward a national curriculum since it creates a federal definition of
reading, thus making compliance with federal standards the goal of
education. I ask my colleagues how does moving further toward a
national curriculum restore parental control of education?
This bill also creates a new federal program to use federal taxpayer
funds to finance teacher testing and merit pay. Mr. Speaker, these may
be valuable education reforms; however, the federal government should
not be in the business of education engineering and using federal funds
to encourage states to adopt a particular education program.
While the stealth tax increase and the new unconstitutional programs
provide significant justification for constitutionalists to oppose this
conference report, the new taxes and spending are not even the worst
parts of this legislation. The most objectionable provision of H.R.
2646 is one that takes another step toward making the federal
government a National School Board by mandating that local schools
consider a student's bringing a weapon to school as evidence in an
expulsion hearing.
The issue is not whether local schools should use evidence of
possessing a weapon as evidence in a discipline procedure. Before this
Congress can even consider the merits of a policy, we must consider
first whether or not the matter falls within our constitutional
authority. The plain fact is as the tenth amendment to the Bill of
Rights makes clear, Congress is forbidden from dictating policy to
local schools.
The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that to
allow the federal government to meddle in the governance of local
schools, much less act as a national school board, would inevitably
result in the replacement of parental control by federal control.
Parents are best able to control education when the decision making
power is located closest to them. Thus, when Congress centralized
control over education, it weakens the ability of parents to control,
or even influence, the educational system. If Congress was serious
about restoring parental control on education, the last thing we would
even consider doing is imposing more federal mandates on local schools.
In conclusion, although the Conference Report of Parent and Student
Savings Account Act does take a step toward restoring parental control
of education, it also raises job-destroying taxes on business.
Furthermore, the conference report creates new education programs,
including a new literacy program that takes a step toward nationalizing
curriculum, as well as imposes yet another mandate on local schools. It
violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and reduces parental
control over education. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience,
support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
bill and instead support legislation that returns education resources
to American parents by returning to them monies saved by deep cuts in
the federal bureaucracy, not by raising taxes on other Americans.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conference
Report accompanying H.R. 2646, the Parent and Student Account PLUS Act
of 1998 (PASS A+) and wish to commend Chairman Archer and Senator
Coverdell for their work on this important bill. As an original
cosponsor of this legislation I am pleased that today Congress is
taking a positive step forward toward helping America's families with
their efforts to educate their children.
Mr. Speaker, our nation's schools face a growing crisis and it is
clear that improvements need to be made. Consider the following
evidence: Nearly 40% of students do not feel safe in school and 2000
acts of violence take place in schools each day; U.S. eighth-graders
recently placed 28th in the world in math and science skills; almost
one out-of-three college freshman require some remedial instruction;
and 40% of all 10 year-olds cannot meet basic literacy standards.
Mr. Speaker, the current state of America's K-12 education system is
a serious threat to the health of the economy and to the future
prosperity of American children. Thus far, school reform initiatives
have focused on increasing funding to public schools. Since 1983,
government funding to public K-12 schools has increased by 44 percent
and average per-student spending has increased by 32 percent. Total
spending for public K-12 education now totals nearly $300 billion per
year. Yet for all these increases in federal government spending, our
children are falling farther behind the children of other nations. In
short, Washington-based solutions to our school's problems have not
worked; nor are they likely ever to work.
Mr. Speaker, to combat the pressing problem of a troubled educational
system, I co-sponsored the Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act
(PASS A+). This bill allows parents, grandparents, or scholarship
sponsors to donate up to $2,000 a year per child with the buildup of
interest within that account to be tax-free if used for the child's
education. Money from this fund could be used to pay for tuition,
books, supplies, computer equipment, transportation, and supplementary
expenses required for the enrollment or attendance of a student in an
elementary or secondary public, private, or religious school--even
associated costs for home schooling are covered.
Mr. Speaker, the PASS A+ legislation is important because it provides
American families with the one educational tool we know works--a
choice. While our Nation's K-12 public schools have fallen farther and
farther behind, our higher education system of colleges and
universities continues to be the envy of the world. Why? simply put,
colleges and universities must compete for students and their education
dollars. This competition has forced colleges and universities to focus
on excellence and improvement and the results speak for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, PASS A+ works for parents and families because it helps
them help themselves. If their local school will not provide the
education their children need, this legislation will allow them to
choose an alternative. In the same vein, if their public school is
working, the proceeds from these accounts can help parents provide
important educational tools for their kids--like a computer. In short,
this bill is a ``win-win.'' It helps all kids, in all schools. I urge
my colleagues to vote for our kids and support the Conference Report.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, the tax scheme contained in this bill is
nothing more than a back door vehicle for subsidizing families who want
to send their children to private elementary and secondary schools. It
is designed to create a tax shelter for families of high incomes, while
leaving nothing for families that don't even have enough to pay for
their retirement.
According to the Department of Education, these tax provisions would
give an average tax break of $96 for families earning $150,000.
However, for poor families, the average benefit would be only $1.
Rather than pursuing this shamefully regressive tax scheme, we should
strengthen our public schools, where 90 percent of our Nation's
children attend. We should address the problems of leaky roofs and
overcrowded classrooms. We should target funds for school renewal in
our country's poorest school districts. Finally, we should move to
reduce class sizes--a proven strategy for enhancing student
achievement.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect all of
us--
[[Page H4737]]
Democracts and Republicans--to work together to improve the education
for our children. This bill, the A-PLUS Savings Accounts for children,
will expand education opportunities for all children in grades K-12. We
owe this to our children. As Washington Post columnist Charles
Krauthammer put it, the ``great crisis in American education is not at
the university level. It is at the elementary and high school levels,
where thousands of kids--particularly inner-city minority kids--are
getting educations so rotten that their entire life prospects are
blighted.'' Indeed, do any Members of this Congress send their sons and
daughters to D.C. public schools? Does the Vice-President? Does the
President? No, they do not. Why, because they know that their children
will not be prepared for college or the workforce. As one of Jesse
Jackson's campaign organizers has noted. I believe that the Clintons
should not be the only Americans in public housing with an opportunity
to send their children to a private school.
This bill will help all parents send their kids to any school they
choose so that their children can get the best education possible. All
children will benefit because any relative, individual, or business
could contribute up to $2,000 in annual contributions per child to an
account that will help pay for educational expenses. The money could be
used for any school: public, private, parochial, or home school, or it
could be used for tutoring, school uniform costs, or children with
special needs. In addition, this bill addresses other problems in our
classrooms which sorely need help; literacy programs, phonics, teacher
testing and merit pay, and tax-free state college savings programs. The
bill has all the right elements for education success: common sense,
more dollars directly to the classroom, scholarships for needy
students, and strategies that will lead to better teaching and
learning. Let's put the interests of all children first, not Washington
lobbyists and special interest. Let's pass H.R. 2646.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, the Republican 105th Congress
has failed to act on legislation to improve American schools and
instead has wasted time on extreme anti-public education legislation.
The Coverdell private school savings account bill is just one of a
number of efforts that serve only to undermine the education of many in
order to benefit a few. Costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars, Coverdell essentially subsidizes upper income families who
already send their children to private and religious schools.
Let's put that money into improving the institutions which educate
more than 90 percent of our elementary and secondary students.
Specifically, construction for our nation's schools should be a top
priority in our education initiatives. The Department of Education
recently released a report highlighting the need for expanding our
nation's classroom space. America's K-12 enrollment will be at an all
time high of 52.2 million this fall, and by 2007 this number will reach
54.3 million.
However, despite this cause for action, this Republican Congress has
refused to heed the call for a school construction initiative which
calls for $5 billion in federal support to deal with the current crisis
both in overcrowding and in crumbling school facilities. It is our
responsibility to provide our children with an environment that is
adequately equipped and conducive to learning.
Whether it be a push for vouchers or private school savings accounts,
Republicans continue to ignore and undermine the needs of the majority
of our nation's children. Time and time again, real concerns such as
school construction are sacrificed in the Republican's narrow agenda.
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, the most important thing we can do for the
future of our nation is to insure that each and every child in America
is given the opportunity to receive the best education possible. I
believe that it is our duty to prepare the next generation to meet the
challenges of the 21st Century. The Parents and Students Savings
Account Plus Act does just that. By allowing Educational Savings
Accounts to be used for primary, secondary or higher education, this
legislation gives our children the opportunity they deserve.
First and foremost, this legislation expands tax free expenditures
from Education Savings Accounts to include elementary and secondary
school expenses. Savings from these accounts can be used for tuition,
tutoring, transportation, books, uniforms, and computers.
Most importantly, the measure increases to $2,000 per year the
maximum amount of contributions that may be made to an Educational
Savings Account. Contributors can include relatives, friends and
corporations as parties who may contribute to this account.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives parents more control over their
children's education and is an important tool in making schools more
accountable to parents. Parents, not government will decide how to best
spend their money on their child's education.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Conference
Report.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition
to the Conference Report on H.R. 2646, a bill which will provide tax
breaks to benefit the wealthy in order to send their children to
private schools.
There is nothing better we can do for this nation than to improve
education, and assure that all children in all communities across this
nation have access to quality education. Unfortunately, the Republican
Majority has once again failed to put forth legislation that will help
us accomplish this goal.
This Conference Report--the cornerstone of the Republican Education
agenda--does absolutely nothing to improve education. It will give a
few wealthy families a tax break on the money they save to send their
children to private schools, or buy additional items such as computers.
But it will do absolutely nothing to improve education in this country
overall.
It will have no impact on our public school system which serves 90%
of all elementary and secondary students. Instead it spends scarce
federal dollars--$2.2 billion over the next five years--to subsidize
families that already send their children to private schools. It will
be those who can already afford private education with or without this
tax break that will benefit from this bill.
Low- and middle-income families are struggling just to keep
themselves above ground financially. This type of assistance, which
requires families to have their own money in order to benefit, does
nothing for families who cannot afford to put money away for education.
An analysis by the Treasury Department found that 70% of the tax
benefits in H.R. 2646 will go to families in the top 20% of the income
brackets, while all other families will get virtually nothing.
The Congress' own Joint Committee on Taxation found that 50% of the
tax benefits in this proposal will go to the 7% of families who are
already sending their children to private and religious schools.
Schools need our help. They need help in renovating crumbling school
buildings and constructing new ones to keep up with student growth.
They need our help in obtaining the latest technology and training
teachers to use that technology. They need our help in reducing class
size, so that children can have more individualized attention. Families
need our help in providing before- and after-school programs, so that
parents know their children are safe and in a learning environment
during those non-school hours during the day.
Instead this bill concentrates on the central Republican education
goal which is to abandon the public school system and help the few who
can attend private schools. This bill would allow for the first time
religious schools to benefit from federal dollars. Though not as direct
as a voucher program, the tax-free interest received in these IRA
accounts can be used to pay the tuition of private and religious
schools.
This Conference Report does nothing to solve our most pressing
problems in education today. It is simply political maneuvering to help
a specific population in this country.
In addition to the tax provisions in this bill, there are other items
of concern in this bill. First the conference report would for the
first time allow federal money to be used to support single-sex
education. It includes a qualifier that says the education offered to
students of both sexes most be comparable. However, there is no
requirement that such schools must comply with equal educational
opportunity laws such as Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of
1972, the equal protection clause under the constitution, or state
laws.
This broadly worded permission to use federal funding for single sex
education ventures down a dangerous path that could turn us back to the
time of separate and unequal education for female students.
The Conference Report also includes a Sense of the Congress
Resolution that 95% of federal elementary and secondary education funds
be spent in the classroom.
While no one can argue that we need to assure that students receive
the full benefits of education funding, this resolution is deeply
flawed in its findings and setting an arbitrary requirement of 95% of
funds that must be spent in the classroom does not consider the
practical aspects of providing education.
The findings in this resolution are not statements of fact, but
conjecture, opinion or they are simply not true. Take for example the
clause which states that there are ``more than 760 Federal education
programs, which span 39 Federal agencies at the price of nearly $100
billion.''
Let's set the record straight. The Department of Education
administers 183 education programs.
Based on an analysis by the U.S. Department of Education, the list of
760 includes 305 which are identified as Department of Education
programs. Of these programs 122 are unauthorized, unfunded or simply
not programs. That leaves 183 Department of Education programs.
The Majority disparages the debate on education policy in this
country by using such
[[Page H4738]]
false information which misleads the American public of the true nature
of federal investment in education.
Federal education programs already drive money down to the local
level. Less than 2% of the US Department of Education budget is spent
on Federal administrative costs. This raises the question; is this a
problem with federal administration or is it a state and local problem?
There are legitimate uses for education dollars that may not be spent
directly in the classroom, but go to assure that children can take full
advantage of the learning experience in our schools. For example,
professional development is necessary to assure quality teachers in our
classrooms, but teacher training does not occur in the classroom. Is
the expense considered ``dollars to the classroom''?
One of the major education goals of the Republican Majority that I
agree with is to send more money to the states for special education.
However, are support services for children with disabilities considered
``dollars to the classroom''?
Funds on technology may need to be spent on infrastructure outside
the classroom so that the school is wired for new technology, also
training teachers on using technology takes place outside of the
classroom. More and more schools are forming consortium and
partnerships with other schools or community groups to improve
technology in their schools. Funds to support such partnerships may not
be spent directly in the classroom. Is this type of technology funding
considered ``dollars to the classroom''?
Assuring that children have a safe and drug free environment in
school may include expenditures outside the classroom. Are Safe and
Drug Free School funds considered ``dollars to the classroom''?
Libraries are an important component of our educational system, and
supplement classroom learning. Is library funding considered ``dollars
to the classroom''?
Mr. Speaker, the Dollars to the Classroom resolution is flawed, as is
the underlying bill. Ask my colleagues to reject this conference report
which will do nothing for education in this country.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Rangel
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rangel moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill H.R. 2646 to the committee of conference with
instructions to the managers on the part of the House 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 motion is not debatable.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RANGEL. 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.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196,
nays 225, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 242]
YEAS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
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
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
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
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--225
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
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, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
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
Schaefer, Dan
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 (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Cooksey
Cunningham
Gonzalez
Green
Hastings (FL)
Leach
McNulty
Moakley
Radanovich
Torres
Weldon (FL)
Wise
{time} 1209
Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. FAWELL, and Mrs. ROUKEMA changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GUTIERREZ, JOHNSON of Wisconsin, and WYNN changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
[[Page H4739]]
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 242, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
personal explanation
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 242, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The question is on the conference
report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 197, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 243]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
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 (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--12
Baldacci
Cooksey
Gonzalez
Green
Hastings (FL)
Leach
McNulty
Moakley
Sessions
Torres
Weldon (FL)
Wise
{time} 1219
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________