[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 115 (Thursday, September 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6233-H6240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5193, BACK TO SCHOOL TAX RELIEF ACT
of 2002
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 521 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 521
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5193) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction to certain
taxpayers for elementary and secondary education expenses.
The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The
amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 521 is a standard closed
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5193, the Back to School
Tax Relief Act of 2002. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great successes of this Congress and this
administration was the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act,
legislation to extend and amend the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
Containing some of the most sweeping education reforms in decades,
the act incorporates four key principles: Stronger accountability to
ensure results; increased flexibility and local control that sends
dollars and decisions directly to the classroom; expanded options for
parents; and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to
work. It is one of these principles, expanded options for parents, that
brings us here today.
The Back to School Tax Relief Act of 2002 will give parents the
opportunity to take advantage of the Tax Code and take control over
financing their child's education. According to the National Center for
Education Statistics, student enrollment at public and private
elementary and secondary schools peaked to a record level of 53.2
million in the fall of 2000, a 14 percent increase since 1990. In my
home State of New York, enrollment in grades K through 12 increased
more than 4 percent from 1994 to 2000, and in many parts of the
country, enrollments are expected to continue increasing through at
least 2005.
As more and more students hit the books, more and more parents are
straining the family finances trying to make ends meet as they put
their kids through school. Under present law, above-the-line deductions
are allowed for qualified tuition and related expenses for higher
education only. The legislation before us today simply extends that
deduction of up to $3,000 to qualified elementary and secondary
education expenses paid in connection with eligible K through 12
students. This includes expenses at public, private, religious or home
schools.
Not every school district is the same nor is every family. By
incorporating this tax deduction we can provide parents the flexibility
to tailor their education expenses to best suit the needs of their
families and their children.
[[Page H6234]]
Quality education should be available and affordable to all parents.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and
Means, especially the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), for
advancing this legislation through committee and bringing it to the
House floor. With our children now back in school, there is no better
time for this body to consider and pass legislation that will help
families offset the cost of education.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and
the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who plays popular sheet music knows that at the
beginning of a piece there is always a place called ``vamp until
ready'' where the pianist literally kills time until we are ready for
the main act when the singer comes on. I think this bill comes into the
category of vamp until ready.
Obviously, we all understand, those of us who serve in Congress and
all of the wonderful staff here, that we need the appropriations bills
on the floor of the House to be passed by October 1 to keep the
government running. I am beginning to think we are not going to do that
this year and expect we will probably come up with a giant continuing
resolution.
But this is certainly a vamp until ready bill, and I certainly rise
in opposition to it, because, in addition to everything else, it has a
closed rule. The underlying bill is part of a continuing wave of
election year gimmicks that the majority knows will never be signed
into law.
At a time when the body is woefully behind in the most basic task of
passing bills funding the Nation's priorities, we should be using our
time more constructively; but, instead, we are considering a resolution
that shuts out consideration of a meaningful bipartisan substitute that
would improve school facilities across the country.
It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker. Surely expanding
educational opportunities for our children would be an issue where this
Congress could set aside its differences and work together. Education
remains at the top of everyone's priority list, for rich and poor,
Democrat and Republican, and any other category of persons. Instead, we
have before us today a purely partisan bill, a bill that the minority
leadership on the Committee on Ways and Means dubbed an embarrassment,
and not a single member of the majority of the Committee on Ways and
Means defended the substance of this bill when the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) and others raised concerns about its uncertain and
likely overly broad definition of eligible expenses.
This measure will not improve the education of a single child,
because it is designed to make a political point and not to become law.
The problems with the bill are numerous.
First, the legislation is the first step towards shifting funds away
from public schools and into private and religious schools. This comes
at a time when States are reeling from lost revenue and being forced to
cut everything from teachers' salaries to laying off firefighters and
policemen. We do not need to utilize the limited time of this body
before adjournment debating another scheme to get the Federal
Government to pay for private school tuition.
Ninety percent of our children are in public schools, and those
schools need our help drastically, now more than ever. I would also
note that the $20,000 limit for singles and $40,000 limit for couples
will not be enough to take advantage of the tax deduction, which is not
refundable. Therefore, we are giving them absolutely nothing.
Several months ago you recall we passed the No Child Left Behind Act
that reauthorized the elementary and secondary education programs, and
the congressional leadership and the President pointed with pride to
the enhanced levels of education spending that were authorized in the
legislation, and it was a fine bipartisan bill. But now the
administration and leadership have allocated funds for that program for
the next fiscal year, and they are $7 billion short. In other words,
Mr. Speaker, many children will be left behind. And while they are
supporting this bill, which is estimated to cost $5 billion, it seems
to me that it would have been much better to have put this money into
leaving no child behind. The substitute that the Democrats were
attempting to offer would go a long way toward addressing the reversal.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect our children to learn and our teachers
to teach unless they are provided with safe and modern school
buildings. Forcing students to go to school in trailers or dilapidated
school buildings is a clear message to them that they do not matter,
and surely we can do better.
Currently our public school system has extraordinary unmet needs for
funds to construct and modernize our schools. The new estimates based
on data collected by the State departments of education indicate that
more than $300 billion will be needed to repair or replace existing
public school facilities. That $300 billion cannot be met without
significant commitment of funds from all levels of government,
including the Federal Government.
The substitute we had hoped to have made in order would provide a
meaningful down payment for school construction and modernization. In
my home State of New York, it would have meant an infusion of close to
$2.5 billion, incredibly needed money for school construction and
rehabilitation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague's remarks, I just must say in
our research of the bill that 90 percent of the families that would
benefit have children in public schools, and $3 out of every $4 of the
tax benefits would be spent on public school education.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1100
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and of
the underlying legislation.
We marked the tragic first anniversary of September 11 yesterday; and
I think, as we focus on our priorities, clearly national security,
winning the war on terrorism, dealing with the threats that exist from
tyrants around the world is our number one priority.
But it is important to note the very key distinction that exists
between those evil-doers, as the President calls them, and those here
in the United States. It is clear that before September 11 of last
year, education was our top priority. It was the issue that both Al
Gore and George Bush agreed on in the election; not exactly how to do
it, but they all agreed.
As my friend, the gentleman from Rochester, New York (Mr. Reynolds),
has just said so well, Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all
agree that it is very important for us to focus on the importance of
education. That is why this House, in a bipartisan way, did pass the No
Child Left Behind Act. It saw broad bipartisan support, and President
Bush was able to sign it.
In the tax measure, we were able to focus attention on that very
important group of Americans who have to deal with the challenge of
paying for higher education. So what is it that we did? We were able to
provide tax incentives for people to deal with the horrendous costs
that exist today for higher education. So now we have moved ahead with
legislation to deal with those at the lower end of the economic
spectrum, those who are trying to focus on the very important primary
and secondary education challenges that we have.
Now, it has been labeled ``nothing but politics,'' and it cannot be
signed into law. I will tell the Members, we can look at a wide range
of legislation that began in this House with Members saying it would
not become public law that in fact did become public law, I think all
the way back to welfare reform measures in the middle part of the last
decade.
[[Page H6235]]
I look at this tax measure that dealt with the issue of providing
incentives for people to move with higher education costs. That
measure, as Members will recall, we tried to move it. People said it
would never be signed into law; but, in fact, as we repeatedly have
proceeded with measures from this House, we have been able to see them
become public law.
Similarly, this Republican majority is saying to those who are at the
lower end of the economic spectrum, we want to make sure that they can
get into that first rung of the ladder. We know that $3,000 would go a
long way towards dealing with the challenge of making sure that books
are available; and tuition, any tuition costs for those on the private
side, although, as my friend, the gentleman from New York, has just
said, 90 percent of those benefiting from this are in public schools;
dealing with the issue of transportation; dealing with computer
technology.
These are the kinds of costs that families face today, and we believe
that single parents earning less than $20,000, married couples with
incomes of $40,000 or less, they should be able to specifically benefit
from this package. It is a program that is focused on ensuring that
those who are not in the upper income brackets have an equal
opportunity to get the best quality education possible.
That is why this is a very good piece of legislation. I commend my
colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means for proceeding with this.
I believe that it is specifically geared towards that. That is why we
should keep it on that issue, so we should vote against a motion to
recommit that my colleagues want to move on the other side of the
aisle, want to move on that, which does not even relate to this issue
of providing incentives for those who are seeking opportunities to
improve their education.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage an ``aye'' vote for this rule and an ``aye''
vote for the very important underlying legislation, and opposition to
any measure which would jeopardize the potential success of it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me the 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that there are so many reasons why we
should vote ``no'' on this rule that it is really hard in the period of
4 minutes to really compress it, but I am going to do the very best I
can.
First of all, this will cost $5 billion over the next 3 years. The
reason it is only for the next 3 years is because it expires at the end
of 3 years. As we know, we have not got any of the appropriations bills
to the President's desk, even though the fiscal year will end in about
3 weeks.
The reason for it is because, rightfully, the appropriators are
having a very difficult time trying to come up with bills that would
stay within at least some reasonable budget confines. That is because
the tax bill that was passed last year, which incidentally was about
$1.4 trillion, and 40 percent of it goes to the top 1 percent of the
taxpayers, which basically makes about $1.1 billion a year on their tax
returns; but the fact of the matter is that here we are now passing a
bill that will cost $5 billion over the next 3 years, and we cannot
move appropriation bills. That is somewhat odd, obviously.
But more importantly, this $5 billion will invade the Social Security
trust fund. As we are getting close to the election on November 5, I
think the American public is entitled to know who really cares about
Social Security, making it ensured as a defined benefit plan.
Obviously, by passing this bill, we are going to make that much more
difficult. Senior citizens of America and those people who are
concerned about being disabled or, obviously, survivors' benefits,
should be very concerned about what we are doing on this particular
piece of legislation.
But most importantly, this is bad legislation. No one gave it a lot
of thought. We did not have a hearing on it. What is interesting is
that one can get up to $3,000 a year on a tax credit, tax deduction, if
one is an elementary or grammar school parent; so they go out and buy a
flat screen television and say, we use this for our children's
education, because we can put it up to a computer. A flat screen TV
costs about $4,000; take $3,000 and use it for a deduction. We know
they are going to do that. We know this is not really going to go for
education. They can even purchase a car if they say they need a car in
order to take the child to school in the morning, up to $3,000, of
course.
This tax bill is ridiculous. It makes no sense at all. It is only a
political document. In fact, we know the Senate is going to take it up
because they have been stopping all this bad legislation we have been
moving out of the House.
Obviously, I think, the Chair and the leadership is probably very
happy about that. In fact, when I asked the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) and I said, how are you going to make this fit within the
budget, he said, it does not make any difference until the President
signs it. Everyone on their side of the aisle chuckled because they
know it is not going to become law.
We should also vote against this because there is one very important
piece of legislation that should pass this year, in spite of the fact
that we have Social Security problems, and others. That is school
construction. We estimated that it would cost $127 billion over the
next decade, $127 billion over the next decade just to repair and
modernize the public schools throughout the United States. $127
billion.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the ranking Democrat, over the years have put together a piece
of legislation that would cost over the next 35 years $25 billion. That
bill would go at least as a downpayment for school construction for all
the public schools in America. This would be a great start.
I have a public school that I went to when I was in high school, C.K.
McClatchy. I go there all the time. The roof is leaking. They cannot do
anything about it. We need to pass a bill that makes sense, not bills
for flat screen TVs or for automobiles. We need a bill that undoubtedly
will help America's schoolchildren.
I would suggest a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the opposition to
this legislation. I am trying to figure it out, but I do not understand
it, because education is supposed to be a top issue for everybody,
important for everybody. So a bill that says that if a family makes
less than $40,000 a year they get a tax deduction of up to $3,000 for
education expenses, it would seem to me that if education is an
important issue, this is a bill that should be important to them.
We just heard the dear friend who spoke before say that one could
even get a car paid for with this tax deduction. I am not sure about
that because the school has to certify first that it is education-
related, the cost, before they can get a tax deduction.
But let us say a family does have a situation where they do not have
transportation, let us say, because in that school district, for
whatever reason, there is no transportation. I do not think there is a
situation like that; I do not think that a school is going to certify a
car. But if there would be a need for that family to have
transportation and that $3,000 tax deduction to solve that
transportation problem, I think it is a worthy thing to do, like I also
think it would be worthy to help a family with academic tutoring or
books or uniforms or supplies, which clearly would be said by the
school to be education related. That is what we are talking about here.
We are talking about families who make $40,000 or less, helping them
out with their needs.
Other things should be done as well on education. Sign us up, of
course. By the way, we got together in a bipartisan fashion, which is
the way in which we should work, and the way I thought we would work
with this legislation, as well, when we are talking about education. We
passed the legislation that was proposed initially by the President. It
was modified here.
So I would ask my colleagues to realize that we are talking about
education
[[Page H6236]]
and we are talking about families who make less than $40,000, and to at
least move the process forward, so hopefully, and whether or not the
Senate acts, I do not know if the Senate is going to act, but I know
education is important.
So I would say, let us move forward and let us improve upon the
legislation if necessary, instead of minimizing it like we are hearing
with the opposition.
This is a good bill. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) for it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I think we do realize that $40,000 is the limit on that. What we are
saying is that is not an income that one would be paying taxes on and
would allow them to get this refund.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished
colleague on the Committee on Rules for yielding time to me. I was
hoping the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) would stay so I
could help to educate my good friend, the gentleman from Florida.
Perhaps he will hear it back in his office.
He began his remarks by indicating he does not understand. What part
of, if you have no tax liability, this bill provides no relief, does
the gentleman not understand, I say to the gentleman, or any of the
other Members that rise in support of this measure?
I am in opposition to the closed rule for the so-called Back to
School Tax Relief Act. As soon as I hear that the teachers in my
district, along with teachers and parents throughout the country, are
voicing strong opposition to an education bill, that bill gets my full
attention.
The teachers of America have good reason, as do parents, to be wary
of this particular measure. Under the pretense of offering tax benefits
to low-income families, this charade, I repeat, charade, and footnote
right there, this is not going to become the law this year, and if it
is, that my colleagues on the other side are setting the stage for
something that is going to pass at some point in the future, then say
that; but do not give the impression here on this floor that this
measure is about to become the law. It is not going anywhere.
As matters go, this tax relief bill could cost the American taxpayer
close to $5 billion over the next 5 years. That said, what happens when
we take that out of the Federal Treasury is there is no additional
money for States and localities, so some of the same parents and some
of the other parents who have no relief here at all are going to wind
up paying more real estate taxes.
To add insult to injury, the actual educational benefits are
negligible, and the actual number of families who might benefit is
amazingly small. This bill will allow two-parent families with incomes
of $40,000 or less and one-parent families with incomes of $20,000 or
less, almost all of whom have no tax liability, to claim deductions for
educational expenses in public, private, religious, or home schools.
The fact is that most families in this tax bracket clearly do not
have a tax liability and would not benefit from this bill. I know that
supporters of this bill claim that it provides educational tax benefits
to all low-income families. The truth is that this bill would provide
educational tax benefits to a few families in America who choose to
send their children to private school. Make no mistake, this bill
allows tuition deductions; and it is little more than a private school
voucher bill. They can put a diamond tiara and a ball gown on an
elephant; but when all is said and done, it is still an elephant.
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui) pointed to a measure that would help these
parents. That is the measure offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), that would add to renovation and modification
and new school construction.
If that is not something that is important, I do not know what is. I
urge my colleagues to reject this rule.
{time} 1115
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just point out as I am managing this rule that
the discussion is on tax deductions, and my understanding, looking at
Committee on Ways and Means, is that even the parliamentarian ruled
that the school construction portion was not germane to the legislation
that was brought forth out of the Committee on Ways and Means and to
the Committee on Rules.
So while there may be great merit on school construction, and some of
my colleagues here are saying that we cannot afford and should not do
the tax deductions and yet have advocated school construction, there
ought to be another place and time in the Committee on Ways and Means
or some other vehicle in the body to bring forth the discussion on
school construction.
This legislation before us is a rule bringing forth consideration by
the entire body of the legislation introduced by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) which deals with a tax deduction for K through
12.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Schaffer), the sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is important. It is important because by its
passage it will bring the underlying legislation to the floor. This is
a bill that is about rich versus poor. And it is surprising to me to
hear the opponents of the rule and the bill speak so viciously against
the poor in America because that is what they are doing. See, if one is
wealthy in America today, one gets a deduction for every donation made
to a school whether it is public or private. But if one is poor, one
does not get that deduction. Since most poor people do not itemize,
they do not take the deduction.
This is an above-the-line deduction that we are proposing in the
legislation which means poor families, those earning $20,000 or less on
an individual return, 40,000 for a joint return, would receive a
deduction on money they spend on education of their children which is a
benefit they do not get today. It is a benefit that will amount to
about $475 for a family in America. It is a benefit they do not have
today. And the cost of educating their children is not a cost that is
borne exclusively by government. It is a cost that is borne by families
as well when they buy uniforms, when they buy band equipment, when they
buy computers, books, school supplies, transportation; and, yes, for
maybe 10 percent of those who are part of the beneficiaries of this
bill, maybe tuition, maybe, at a private school.
Ninety percent of the benefit of this bill will result in more money
being available for public schools, not private. And this is a benefit
that occurs to poor families with children in schools and these
families want to invest more money in their child's education. Those
who say that $5 billion is too much to spend on the poor children of
America, I say shame on you. We are going to squander more than that on
every agency, department we can name, A, B, C, D departments down the
street here.
But all we are talking about doing here is setting aside about $5
billion over 10 years so that poor families can afford to spend more
money on their child's education, not on bridges, not on post offices
in all our districts, not on new university projects, not on water
projects, not on dams, not on agriculture research, but on education. I
believe it is important. I believe it is one of our highest priorities,
and I regret that there are people here who cannot agree with that. In
fact, we agreed when we passed the budget because we built this fund,
we built the $5 billion right into our own budget. And we have
accommodated the spending that we are contemplating here. Let us just
do it. Let us pass the resolution.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule as well as to
the underlying bill. When we first listened to the bill and we listened
to the gentleman who just spoke, this bill sounds appealing. It is
aimed at the working
[[Page H6237]]
class whom he calls the poor. It is designed to help them afford
education, and we would think on first blush that that is good idea.
But on closer examination what we find is this bill is really a very
bad idea.
First of all, it is fiscally irresponsible. They do not want to talk
about that, but the fact is for the same duration of this bill we will
also be experiencing tremendous deficits in this country and this bill
will only make that situation worse.
Second, we find this bill is very disingenuous. They tell us they are
trying to help the working class poor, but in fact most of those people
will not be eligible because this is a deduction, and if they have
other deductions that do not have the requisite income levels, they
will not get the benefit of this deduction. So do not believe that they
are really helping the poor. This is basically an election year gimmick
bill.
Third, the bill is very contradictory. In the No Child Left Behind
bill, the appropriation, they have underfunded education by $7.2
billion. They are indeed leaving children behind.
Let us look specifically at special education. We made a commitment
several years ago to fund 40 percent of special education costs for
local school districts. We are only funding 18 percent. But now they
have a new gimmick bill while they are not fulfilling the commitments
they already made in the area of special education. I find that very
disturbing.
They want to talk about the poor. Title I is specifically the program
designed to help the poor. The No Child Left Behind bill calls for $16
billion in funding. But they actually only appropriate $11.3 billion.
We are short $4.7 billion. About the same amount that they want to
claim they can give back in their bill. Remember, most of the poor will
not be eligible, but they will be shortchanged because we underfunded
Title I.
After-school programs, certainly low income residents and students
need after-school programs. They underfund after-school programs by
half a billion dollars, but yet they come up with an election year
gimmick bill.
As we will hear from the Democratic side, what we really need in poor
communities is school modernization, technology, improved roofing, air
conditioning. Young people come to me and say, We need air
conditioning. It is 90 degrees and our building is not air-conditioned.
That would really help the poor.
But at the end of the day what we find is this is a gimmick bill.
They do not expect it to be signed into law. It is disingenuous. It
suggests that people will get benefits when they are really not
eligible. It is fiscally irresponsible. And it contradicts promises
they have already made. There are abundant reasons why we should reject
this bill and I urge my colleagues to do so.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity
to speak on behalf of this bill and to once again state the obvious,
and that is, in fact, the poor will benefit.
I do not know how many ways we can put this. This is an above-the-
line deduction that we are proposing. It does not matter about the
deductions that they have. It is above-the-line. It will come to them
regardless. It will, in fact, help the poor. I do not know how many
ways there are to say that in order to, in fact, get people to
understand the nature of an above-the-line deduction which is being
proposed here.
Let us also talk about the possibility that this thing may not become
law. Well, I do not know what will happen from this point on with this
bill. My only responsibility is to determine how I should vote on this
bill before me at this time and why. And I recognize that it may not
become law. I recognize that there are many forces arrayed against it,
mostly the forces of monopoly education, those people who say there is
only one way to educate a child. It is our way or the highway; that the
only money that can be possibly be spent on education is in the system
we, the government, can control.
We know that that is where the real opposition is in this bill. It
has nothing to do with the amount of money being spent. For heaven's
sake, Members of the Committee on Ways and Means, Democratic Members of
the Committee on Ways and Means have introduced 6 bills that I have in
front of me that take an awful lot more money away from education than
this even purports to, and this, of course, puts it into education. It
is just not their kind of education. Not the education system that is
run by the government that gets all of the money. It will get 90
percent of it. But a tiny little trickle may end up going to a private
school and God knows we cannot have that. Why? Because we do not have
control over that process.
Well, I tell you we should not. The only people that should have
control over that process are the parents of the kids that are being
sent to those schools. They are the ones who should make this
determination as to where their kids are going to be educated, where
the best educational experience can be obtained. We do not mind having
that happen for people who are rich, for people who can any single day
stand up and say I want my child in this district or in this school and
I am willing and able to pay for it. We do not do that. Why do we do it
to the poor?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to
the bill which underlies it. I just came from the Committee on the
Budget, on which I sit, and listened to Mr. Greenspan tell us about the
chaos in our economy, and he is talking about a Congress that has
abandoned fiscal discipline. Essentially what he said was this
Republican Congress in this 40th act of the fiscal follies of 2001 and
2002 has absolutely decided to eat their dessert before they eat their
vegetables. You have been doing it for 2 solid years. You passed the
tax cuts, but you cannot pass a budget. You have given all the goodies
away and you cannot pass the budget. That is why we are not anywhere
near completion here.
This private school voucher is just one more example of the same
stuff. The President has clapped himself on the back, and all the
Members have, about ``we passed No Child Left Behind,'' and that
promised an increase of 15 percent funding in education, but the
President's budget only had 2.8 percent increase in spending. Why did
you promise 15 percent and then the President puts out a budget for
less than a fifth of that? That does not make any sense. You are
leaving kids behind, and we are going to give you an opportunity to
change your priorities.
This picture has on it some of what we want to do in the motion to
recommit. You can take the same money that you are giving away and
throwing out there for people to buy gym shoes and TVs and whatever
they want as long as they say it is for education. That is all they
have to do is say it is for education. You take that same money and you
can do something for public schools. With $7 billion you can leverage
$25 billion of construction.
I put these pictures up here because I want you to understand we are
not talking about theoretical stuff. We are talking about drinking
fountains, we are talking about broken steps, we are talking about
rotten ceilings in schools. We send kids to those public schools and
say, ``Why do the teachers not teach them well? I think people ought to
have a choice to go to a private school to get away from this.''
Because we will not put the money into something that makes real sense.
This voucher, when we questioned the people from Treasury and said
what can one use this money for, it was appalling. You can do it for
broadband access for your TV or maybe you do not have a TV; so because
you want your computer to go through the TV, you can buy a TV, one of
those nice flat-screen ones and you can deduct the whole thing. You can
buy gym shoes, some of those Michael Jordan $100 gym shoes, because
your kid has to take gym and that is related to gym. Baby-sitters or
maybe a cab ride to school. The school says we are not going to have
any buses and you have got to get your kid there any way you can. All
you have got to do is call a cab and deduct it from your income tax.
If this makes sense when we are putting the children of the United
States
[[Page H6238]]
in these kinds of schools, this is San Diego, but I could bring some
from Seattle, and I bet there is not a Member on this floor that could
not bring pictures just like this from their district, and yet we have
a bill. It has been in the Congress. It was introduced. It has 228
signatures. That is more than half the House of Representatives, and we
cannot get the chairman to even have a hearing. Now tell me, are we
going to leave any children behind? It is pretty obvious we are because
we have to continue the tax giveaway follies. Vote no on the rule, vote
yes on the motion to recommit, and vote no on the bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding.
I rise in support of this underlying rule and in support of the
underlying bill. This is the first full week of school in many areas of
our country. In Florida, where I come from, they went back into school
in August, but for millions of Americans things are really getting
underway right now and they are being faced by significant costs.
Particularly I want to address the people who have their children in
public school. Many of these families have to buy gym clothes, as the
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott) mentioned. Some of them
have to pay yearbook fees, they have to pay fees for new software, lots
of additional fees. I had one parent with two kids in public school
tell me that they were out several hundred dollars in cheerleading fees
and other fees. Obviously for people who have their children in private
school, this is a much greater expense.
{time} 1130
This body spoke and this body voted, and the Senate approved it and
it was signed into law; and we allowed a tax deduction of $3,000 for
higher education.
What this debate is really about is are we going to allow the same
thing for K through 12 and why not? Why not? The gentleman from
Washington State talked about putting more money into education for
Washington. I have been here for 8 years now. When I got here, the
education budget was $30 billion. What is it now, 48 billion or
something like that?
I want to address this issue of school construction. We could
probably get a bill out of this body, but one of the things that holds
this issue up is there are a lot of people on that side of the aisle
that want to mandate that any school construction funds adhere to
Davis-Bacon union work requirements; and in the State of Florida, this
is going to drive up school construction costs by 30 percent. Frankly,
for us in Florida, we do not want Federal money if it has those kinds
of strings attached; and that gets me to what really is the issue here.
We are trying to help families, and we are not trying to help rich
families. This is targeted for the $20,000 to $40,000 range. We are
specifically trying to help working families that have kids and have
struggled making ends meet. Why should they send 30 cents to Washington
for every 70 cents they spend on their kids' education? Give them the
whole dollar to spend on their kids' education.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me the time, and I would just say to the last speaker that he
is correct that we gave a $3,000 deduction for higher education.
However, he also must know that that expires at the end of 2005. It is
not a permanent tax part of this.
Secondly, I would say that it is kind of interesting to listen to
some prior speakers who talked about the poor and who would get this.
First, no single mother with an income more than $20,000 is going to be
eligible because, by the way, $20,000 is the statutory income cutoff
for noncouples.
Second, no single mother with less than a $20,000 income will benefit
if she has significant child care expenses. The reason is that for
every potential dollar of tax cut from a new K through 12 education
deduction, she loses a dollar of benefit under the dependent care tax
credit. The credit is nonrefundable so the usable credit is limited to
the amount of tax liability prior to the credit if the liability is
already as low as the credit or lower, which is the case for such a
single mother; then reducing her tax liability with a new deduction
just reduces the credit. There is no net gain.
I might point out that after reading all of this, one of the things I
think the American people are very concerned about is how we make our
Tax Code less complicated rather than more complicated, and this
certainly is causing us to have more complication and for people to
even have the ability to use this.
Third, even among mothers without dependent care expenses, for a
single mother with two children to get a benefit, her income has to fit
within a very narrow range of $19,250 to $20,000. A single mother, two
children and a $19,250 income or less is not going to benefit because
the child credit is only partly refundable and because her tax before
credit is low. She is unable to use all of the $600 per-child credit,
so her tax before credit is reduced by a new deduction; her usable
child credits fall by that same amount.
So as my colleagues can see, there are some concerns as to who would
be able to use this and particularly at those levels.
I also have to say that I always can tell when there is a bad bill
because, quite frankly, the rule then governs the debate. Guess what.
Today, we have a closed rule with no substitute allowed. Are we afraid
to have debate in the U.S. Congress about issues that are of concern to
the American public? I do not think the American public is concerned
about debate. So why would we close the rule?
What we are going to have is an opportunity to at least take
advantage of one area that they cannot take, and that is the motion to
recommit; and in that motion to recommit, we are going to ask this
Congress to look at what every State is asking for and, that is, funds
for the ability to build schools. With that, let us take down this
rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In listening to my colleague from Florida, I looked at the number of
families and kids who could potentially benefit from the education tax
deduction in 2000. The State of Florida, the number of families is
722,518. The number of children is 1,283,971.
I would also say, and I cannot speak for the Committee on Rules, but
I can talk about our precedent in the Committee on Rules, and I can
speak for me as an individual. I want to remind the gentlewoman that
there was no substitute brought before the Committee on Rules that
could have been considered and would have been routinely added as a
substitute consideration to come to the floor.
Then I will also point out that I have not seen any motion that has
referred to school construction that has been made available to me as a
member of the Committee on Rules or to anyone else that I have asked.
So I want to make sure that my colleagues both on the floor and
throughout the buildings clearly understand that the rule before us
today says that it is a legislation, I will ask the gentleman from
Colorado to speak on again, of a deduction, of $3,000 above the line
for K through 12.
School construction may be a worthy subject. It is one that we know
there are sponsors on both sides of the aisle. The Parliamentarian
ruled that school construction would not be part of this as it was
presented in the Committee on Ways and Means and was defeated on a
party-line vote. There will be a future bill on construction, I am
sure, because I have not seen it go away, but this does not address
that.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. McDermott) will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, has the Parliamentarian made a decision
on the amendment which is going to be offered later in the day?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond with an
anticipatory ruling or advisory opinion.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) is recognized.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H6239]]
Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me ask this in the form of a question.
It is my understanding, and I would like to be corrected if not, that
in fact there was a substitute that was brought to the committee. My
understanding is that it was out of order. But is it not customary, on
occasion, that we have the opportunity to waive the rules?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Number one, it is my understanding the substitute was
not germane. Number two, we usually do not waive the rules on
germaneness.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
is it my understanding that the rules were waived on this bill?
Mr. REYNOLDS. We waived points of order for technical reasons.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, the
number he has read back to me of the children and those who would have
been affected by this piece of legislation, let me just say also to him
that under America's Better Classroom Act, quite frankly the State of
Florida would have received $1.1 billion in new additional dollars for
classrooms. This could have given us some ideas of what we could have
done with classroom size.
I would also say I watched after this body, and I thought we have a
very good debate. We talked about education; we did a bipartisan bill.
We all believed that the President was right in putting this bill of
Leave No Child Behind. It was historic across the Nation. We watched
people go around in a bipartisan way. I mean, we had the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and others standing hand in hand; how
wonderful this legislation was going to be.
I also remember the day that the debate took place, and the debate
went something along the lines, this is a good piece of legislation if
the money's there. Lo and behold, we get a budget proposal this year
that cuts $8 billion. Instead of restoring dollars to the budget, for
things like classroom size and other things, the fact of the matter is
we are going to end up cutting $7 billion to give $5 billion to
probably where very few people will be able to use this because of
their other tax liabilities.
I would suggest to this body that if my colleagues are going to make
promises and go out and talk about historic legislation, they ought to
back it up with the money and quit playing tax breaks for a few.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, our last speaker is the bill's sponsor. I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) to help
us clearly see the intent of what he has sponsored in his legislation,
because the debate on education has taken us in varied directions.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I thank him for putting the final discussion here in the
right context because the debate has drifted far away from the intended
subject, and that subject is America's children who are in schools and
primarily those who are poor.
I have always appreciated the gentlewoman from Florida for her
candor, and I appreciate it again today because she really revealed the
motivation behind many of the votes that will take place today. It is
motivated by unrelated issues, about school construction, other bills;
and unfortunately, if they succeed, the casualty in the outcome of that
debate would be poor children in America.
The bill that precipitated the debate and brought the rule here is
all about focusing on families that earn $20,000 per individual,
$40,000 per married couple, and allowing them to deduct from their
taxable income up to $3,000 of expenditures for costs associated with
educating their children, for books, supplies, materials, tuition,
transportation, those items that those families believe to be in the
best interests of furthering their child's education.
I understand there are many here who have opposed and been in
opposition of this idea because they do not trust these parents. They
think they might buy flat screen TVs. Guess what, the Department of
Education buys flat screen TVs. In fact, the Department of Education
has a very bad record over the last several years when it comes to
waste, fraud and abuse. We have investigated it. I did not see anybody
over on that side of the aisle stand up saying, wait a minute, since
they spent money on Cadillacs, flat screen TVs, have lost cash,
hundreds of millions of dollars, let us not give them anymore. Nobody
raised that argument. In fact, my colleagues' argument then was let us
give them more money so they do not waste as much.
I tend to trust families and individuals to spend money right when it
comes to their children, and I trust them more than I do government.
That is just what I believe, and that is really what this debate is all
about.
For those who believe that there is not really an appreciable benefit
for families, they should just vote for it, because as my colleague
pointed out, this costs $5 billion. That is $5 billion of children who
stand to benefit from this legislation. Let us spend it on them rather
on the bureaucracy, and let us vote for the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to make two points. One is that we do trust American
families on this side of the aisle. We trust them enough that we do not
want to perpetrate a hoax on them this morning, which we think is
exactly what is happening here, and to point out that had the gentleman
from New York's (Mr. Rangel) substitute been allowed and passed, that
our State of New York would receive $2.5 billion in much needed
construction money.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1145
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208,
nays 201, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 387]
YEAS--208
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
[[Page H6240]]
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--201
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--23
Ackerman
Bonilla
Clement
Combest
Cooksey
Gallegly
Gilman
Gonzalez
Hastings (WA)
Hilleary
Issa
Lynch
Meek (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Neal
Rahall
Roukema
Stearns
Stump
Towns
Velazquez
{time} 1212
Messrs. HONDA, DICKS, LIPINSKI, JACKSON of Illinois, McINTYRE,
JEFFERSON and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. TERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 387 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________