[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2279-E2280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 HELPING EMPOWER LOW-INCOME PARENTS [HELP] SCHOLARSHIPS AMENDMENTS OF 
                                  1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MAX SANDLIN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 4, 1997

  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2746, the HELP 
Scholarships Program. I am a strong advocate for public schools and I 
believe we must work to ensure that all children, regardless of race, 
religion, income, or social status, have an opportunity to receive the 
best education possible in our public schools. We should not jeopardize 
that opportunity with an ill-conceived plan to provide tax dollars to 
private schools.
  If we are to improve public education in this country, we must take 
positive steps. I believe the principles outlined in the Democratic 
plan provide the foundation for those steps. We have focused on six 
goals: First, early childhood development--basics by age six; second, 
well-trained teachers; third, relief for crumbling and overcrowded 
schools, and well-equipped classrooms; fourth, support for local plans 
to renew neighborhood public schools; fifth, efficient and coordinated 
use of resources; and sixth, parental choices for public schools.
  These goals seem to be simple common sense. They provide the basis 
for a quality, public education for all students. If we, as Members of 
Congress, unite behind these goals, we can make great strides in our 
quest to improve public education. In our great country, everyone is 
guaranteed the right to a free, public education. It is our duty to 
ensure that a public education is consistently a quality education.
  The increasing competitiveness of our global economy requires that 
our young people be better educated than ever before in our history. 
Our schools must provide adequate training in the basic skills needed 
to succeed in the current and future job market. We must ensure that 
all of our students have access to an education that prepares them to 
survive in a global economy. The Democratic plan places us firmly on 
that path.
  Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today will help only a few 
children fortunate enough to meet the criteria to attend private 
schools. This bill provides no real choice to students or parents. It 
does nothing for the vast majority of the nation's students. Only a few 
lucky students could take advantage of the program given the low 
funding level for the title VI program under which the vouchers would 
be provided.
  The Republican plan might provide more opportunity to a few select 
lower income students, but what about the rest? What about the students 
that private schools don't want? We cannot require private schools to 
admit all students. This bill affords no civil rights protections to 
the students in the voucher program. Schools accepting vouchers do not 
have to accept children who need high-cost education because they are 
disabled, have limited English proficiency, or are homeless. When we 
provide public funds to these schools, we resurrect the misguided 
concept of ``separate but equal.''
  In addition to the problems presented by diverting public money into 
private schools, I believe it is important to point out that it is a 
clear violation of the first amendment doctrine of separation of church 
and state to provide public money to private, religious schools. This 
bill explicitly permits Federal funds to be used for sectarian 
activities. Such provisions are clearly contrary to the provision of 
the first amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion. The 
Supreme Court has consistently held that tax dollars cannot pay, 
directly or indirectly, for religious education or the religious 
mission of parochial schools. If we adopt this

[[Page E2280]]

voucher program, it will certainly face a court challenge that it could 
not withstand.
  Nowhere in the United States has there been a successful voucher 
plan. In fact, most states, including my own State of Texas, have 
rejected vouchers at every turn. The States understand that our public 
schools cannot and will not survive if we enact such a proposal. To the 
contrary, they will wither on the vine.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support local control and I am not at this 
point willing to reject all voucher proposals out of hand. But many of 
our local governments have spoken and the result has been a resounding 
``no''. Until a voucher plan is successful at the local level, we in 
Congress should not impose our will on individual school districts and 
force them to lose any of their much needed public funding.
  Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for experimentation. Now is the time 
to fight for our public schools, to fight for a quality education for 
all children, to fight for state-of-the-art equipment in the classroom. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation.

                          ____________________