February 4, 1964
Page 1833
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, democracy is an exacting form of government and requires an educated and informed citizenry. In recent years, the cold war has become in large part a battle for men's minds, and it is no exaggeration to say that our educational system is one of freedom's first lines of defense.
If we are to survive, if we are to prosper, if we are to achieve for every American that opportunity for spiritual and material fulfillment to which each is entitled, we must insure that our educational system effectively serves our needs. Above all, we must see to it that its opportunities are fully available for the development of our young people whatever the limitations of their own financial resources.
The Senator from Connecticut has performed a great service. Although he describes his amendment as a tax measure, rather than an education measure, it is clearly designed to advance the cause of education.
But worthy as is that cause, agree though I may with its objective, I do not believe that this is the time or the place for enactment of this measure.
Whatever it may be called, this amendment is an education measure. The pending business is a tax bill. The two should not be confused. An overwhelming and most unusual national consensus has coalesced in support of this tax bill, as an economic measure. Adoption of this amendment would throw the proposed rate structure into confusion and may seriously delay -- or even jeopardize -- passage of this most important bill.
For the proposed amendment will, in fact, be the most expensive education bill for individuals ever enacted -- with the sole exception of the GI bill. Its cost alone -- $750 million the first year, $1.3 billion by 1970 -- requires that it be considered in conjunction with our overall education policy. Federal aid to education on such a massive scale deserves the deliberate, careful scrutiny of Congress within the framework of our national policy in this important area.
It should not be in the form of an amendment to an economic measure.
It should not be considered without the benefit of wide-ranging and detailed hearings. Our educational needs are many; our resources, great as they are, are limited. Is every Member of this body firmly convinced that the priorities established by this amendment are warranted in an investment of such magnitude? Is it not possible that a more searching investigation will reveal that a different order of priorities is called for?
Mr. President, the objections I have raised have not been directed to the merits of the amendment. They have been concerned with the wisdom of approving it at this particular time.
In addition, there are, it seems to me, some valid questions with respect to the amendment itself which require consideration.
As proposed, the amendment would be of little or no help to those countless thousands of young Americans who cannot now afford to go to college. It will do nothing at all for the millions of Americans in the lower income brackets. It will simply make it a little easier for those who can already afford to send their children to college. Certainly. this is a laudable objective. But should not a program of this magnitude provide some assistance to those who cannot now even begin college?
Second, there seems to be little doubt that many colleges will increase their tuition rates. Thus, it may well be that the taxpayer entitled to the credit will obtain no real benefit, while the problem of getting a college education will become even greater for those now unable to do so.
Third, the fact that the amount of the credit depends upon the tuition rate means that the amendment provides the greatest measure of relief where it is generally needed least: To taxpayers paying tuition for students at high-tuition colleges. Those students attending low-tuition institutions will, in most cases, be unable to qualify for the maximum credit.
Finally, Mr. President, I should note that, as a father of five whose college careers will begin in 4 years, I find the benefits under the Ribicoff amendment very tempting. But, I would like to point out that this would be in addition to benefits already afforded me under the bill. The relief would be most helpful to me, but it would be of little value to families in Maine with income of $5,000 and less.
The Ribicoff amendment would provide, in effect, double relief for a small portion of the middle income group -- relief which would not be available to our lower income families. The tax bill, as reported to us by the Finance Committee, is designed to provide equitable relief to a wide spectrum of taxpayers. The Ribicoff amendment would distort that effect.
Here are some examples, using the average family, with two children at $10,000. Such a family would receive a $223, or 19-percent cut under the tax bill. The Ribicoff amendment would add a $325 cut, or an additional 26 percent, for a total net reduction of 45 percent. At $15,000, such a family would receive a $369, or 17-percent, cut under the tax bill. The Ribicoff amendment would add a $325 cut, or an additional 15 percent, for a total net reduction of 32 percent. At $20,000, such a family would receive a $560, or 16-percent cut under the tax bill. The Ribicoff amendment would add a $325 cut, or an additional 10 percent, for a total net reduction of 26 percent.
Mr. President, I hope that the interest in meeting our educational need which has been kindled by this amendment will continue long after this tax bill is passed. I hope that this Congress, which wrote a remarkable legislative record in the field of education last year, will not rest upon its past achievements, for much remains to be done. And although I will vote against this amendment, I wish to make it unmistakably clear to the Senator from Connecticut and to the rest of my colleagues that this is not a vote against the objective of the amendment. It is rather an expression of my belief that the objective can be better served, the priorities more precisely established, and the resources more equitably distributed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several telegrams from both supporters and opponents of the proposed amendment, in Maine, be inserted in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the telegrams were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AUGUSTA, MAINE,
February 3, 1964.
Senator EDMUNDS. MUSKIE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
I respectfully urge you to oppose the Ribicoff amendment 329. Scholarships and loans make it possible for many students to go to college who couldn't otherwise go. Tax credits rarely make that much difference. Maine teachers have expressed repeatedly their support of a scholarship and loan program. They have never shown any enthusiasm for tax credits which would reduce taxes to the benefit of many who are able to finance the education of their own children.
CLYDE RUSSELL,
Executive Secretary, Maine Teachers Association.
ORONO, MAINE,
February 3,1964.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Washington, D.C.:
I firmly believe the Ribicoff -Keating tuition tax credit plan detrimental to broadening of opportunity in higher education. Respectfully request your opposition.
LLOYD H. ELLIOTT,
President, University of Maine.
PORTLAND, MAINE,
February 3, 1964.
Senator EDMUND MUSKIE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Diocesan school department approves Ribicoff tax credit bill. Would appreciate your support.
Msgr. ARMAND E. CYR,
Superintendent.
PORTLAND, MAINE,
February 3, 1964.
Senator EDMUND MUSKIE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
We favor the Ribicoff tax credit bill.
ST. DOMINICS MOTHERS CLUB.