[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 23702-23703]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS WITH VOUCHERS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 30, 2003

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, many of those who share my belief that the 
most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the 
education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a 
means to that end. I certainly sympathize with the goals of voucher 
proponents and I believe that States and local governments have the 
right, protected by the Tenth Amendment, to adopt any sort of voucher 
program they believe meets the needs of their communities. However, I 
have a number of concerns regarding proposals to implement a voucher 
plan on the Federal level.
  The basic reason supporters of parental control of education should 
view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism is that 
vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are 
a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children 
selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher 
program supported by many conservatives is little more than another 
tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private 
school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral 
questions as other transfer programs. Yet, voucher supporters wonder 
why middle-class taxpayers, who have to sacrifice to provide a private 
school education to their children, balk at being forced to pay more 
taxes to provide a free private education for another child.
  It may be argued that vouchers are at least a more efficient welfare 
program than continuing to throw taxpayer money at public schools. 
However, the likely effect of a voucher program is to increase spending 
on new programs for private schools while continuing to increase 
spending on programs for public schools. For example, Mr. Speaker, 
during the debate on the DC voucher program, voucher proponents 
vehemently denied that any public schools would lose any Federal 
funding. Some even promised to support increased Federal spending on 
DC's public and charter schools. Instead of reducing funding for failed 
programs, Congress simply added another 10 million dollars (from taxes 
or debt) to the bill to pay for the vouchers without making any 
offsetting cuts. In a true free market, failing competitors are not 
guaranteed a continued revenue stream.
  Many supporters of vouchers couch their support in rhetoric about a 
child's right to a quality education and the need for equal educational 
opportunities for all. However, accepting the premise that people have 
a ``right'' to a good of a certain quality logically means accepting 
government's role in establishing standards to ensure that providers 
are giving their consumers a ``quality'' product. Thus, in order to 
ensure that vouchers are being used to fulfilling students' ``right'' 
to a ``quality'' education (as defined by the government) private 
schools will be forced to comply with the same rules and regulations as 
the public schools.
  Even some supporters of vouchers recognize the threat that vouchers 
may lead to increased Federal regulation of private schools. These 
voucher supporters often point to the fact that, with vouchers, parents 
will choose which schools receive public funding to assuage the 
concerns of their critics. However, even if a voucher program is free 
of State controls at its inception, it will not remain so for long. 
Inevitably, some parents will choose a school whose curriculum is 
objectionable to many taxpayers; say an academy run by believers in the 
philosophy of the Nation of Islam. This will lead to calls to control 
the schools for which a voucher can be used. More likely, parents will 
be given a list of approved schools where they can use their voucher at 
the inception of the program. Government bureaucrats will have compiled 
the list to ``help'' parents choose a quality school for their 
children.
  The fears of these voucher critics was confirmed on the floor of the 
House of Representatives when the lead sponsor of the DC voucher 
amendment admitted that under his plan the Department of Education 
would have to begin accrediting religious schools to ensure that only 
qualified schools participate in the voucher program because religious 
schools currently do not need to receive government accreditation. 
Government accreditation is the first step toward government control.
  Several private, Christian schools in my district have expressed 
concerns that vouchers would lead to increased government control of 
private education. This concern is not just limited to Christian 
conservatives; the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation league opposed 
the recent DC voucher bill because he feared it would lead to ``. . . 
an unacceptable effort by the government to monitor and control 
religious activities.''
  Voucher supporters will fall back on the argument that no school is 
forced to accept vouchers. However, those schools that accept vouchers 
will have a competitive advantage over those that do not because they 
will be perceived as being superior since they have the ``government's 
seal of approval.'' Thus, those private schools that retain their 
independence will likely be forced out of business by schools that go 
on the government dole.
  We have already seen how a Federal education program resembling a 
voucher program can lead to Federal control of education. Currently, 
Federal aid to college students is dispersed in the form of loans or 
grants to individual students who then transfer these funds to the 
college of their choice. However the government has used its support of 
student loans to impose a wide variety of policies dealing with 
everything from the makeup of student bodies to campus safety policies. 
There are even proposals for Federal regulation of the composition of 
college faculties and course content! I would remind my colleagues that 
only two colleges refuse to accept Federal funds (and thus Federal 
control) today. It would not be a victory for either liberty or quality 
education if the experience of higher education was replicated in 
private K-12 education. Yet, that is the likely result if the 
supporters of vouchers have their way.
  Some supporters of centralized education have recognized how vouchers 
can help them advance their statist agenda. For example, Sibhon Gorman, 
writing in the September 2003 issue of the Washington Monthly, suggests 
that, ``The way to insure that vouchers really work, then is to make 
them agents of accountability for the private schools that accept them. 
And the way to do that is to marry the voucher concept with the testing 
regime mandated by Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. Allow children to 
go to the private school of their choosing, but only so long as that 
school participates in the same testing requirements mandates for 
public schools.'' In other words, parents can choose any school they 
want as long as the school teaches the government approved curriculum 
so the students can pass the government approved test.
  Instead of expanding the Federal control over education in the name 
of parental control, Congress should embrace a true agenda of parental 
control by passing generous education tax credits. Education tax 
credits empower parents to spend their own money on their children's 
education. Since the parents control the education dollar, the parents 
control their children's education. In order to provide parents with 
control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom 
Act (H.R. 612) that provides all parents with a tax credit of up to 
$3,000. The credit is available to parents who choose to send their 
children to public, private, or home school. Education tax credits are 
particularly valuable to lower income parents.
  The Family Education Freedom Act restores true accountability to 
education by putting parents in control of the education dollar. If a 
child is not being educated to the parents' satisfaction, the parent 
will withdraw that student from the school and spend their education 
dollars someplace else.
  I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 
611) that provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for in-kind or cash 
donation to public, private, or home schools. The Education Improvement 
Tax Cut Act relies on the greatest charitable force in history to 
improve the education of children from low-income families: the 
generosity of the American people. As with parental tax credits, the 
Education Improvement Tax Cut Act brings true accountability to 
education since taxpayers will only donate to schools that provide a 
quality education.

[[Page 23703]]

  Mr. Speaker, proponents of vouchers promise these programs advance 
true market principles and thus improve education. However, there is a 
real danger that Federal voucher programs will expand the welfare state 
and impose government ``standards'' on private schools, turning them 
into ``privatized'' versions of public schools. A superior way of 
improving education is to return control of the education dollar 
directly to the American people through tax cuts and tax credits. I 
therefore hope all supporters of parental control of education will 
support my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax 
Cut Act.

                          ____________________