Robert Torricelli: “there is always a desire of a Member of the Senate to be philosophically consistent, so I think the question bears some…”

“there is always a desire of a Member of the Senate to be philosophically consistent, so I think the question bears some scrutiny. Members of the Senate have previously voted for Hope scholarships and student loan programs in this country, which also have caps on who is eligible to participate. The caps the Senate has previously provided are identical to what is in the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal. There is a two-income, $60,000 cap. So when the Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that 70 percent of all these benefits will go to families that earn $75,000 and less, the reason is that there is a cap in the provision that ensures the principal benefits are going to middle-income families, to working families. It was designed to accomplish that end. But there is another philosophical consistency with people. I have people raise with me all the time a legitimate concern whether the Government is funding private education. As I pointed out, every dollar of this is the family's money, it is not Government's money. But Members of the Senate who voted previously for savings accounts for higher education have faced this question. I have never heard a Member of the Senate rise on this floor and say, ``Well, I'm for savings accounts for colleges, but I don't want it for Notre Dame or Harvard.''”