Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I was in support of the scholarship programs that we just voted down. But this bill introduces the notion of a brand new Federal program. I have not seen the problem to be lack of Government intervention at the Federal level, nor lack of funds.

I believe very sincerely that our public school system faces too much regulation from the Federal level, we do not need a new program. In this bill we will have mandates from the Federal Government on the States. There is also recommendations in here that the curriculum be evaluated. To me, this introduces a notion that we are so much opposed to testing, because it is the eventual evaluation and setting of standards that I think is so dangerous to the public school system.

This bill has $100 million in it. I can see why some who believe in big government believe in expanding the role of government in education, would support this. I strongly oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 2616, a bill amending titles VI and X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand the use of charter schools. Despite the understandable enthusiasm many members of Congress feel toward charter schools, Congress should reject this bill as it represents an unconstitutional federal infringement upon the authority of states, local communities, and individual citizens to control education. The tenth amendment reserves to the states and the people `all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,' and thus forbids the federal government from any interference in education be it by mandating a national curriculum or providing incentives to states and localities to form charter schools. The drafters of the constitution made no exception for education in the tenth amendment.

H.R. 2616 encourages states to alter their education laws and policies for the purpose of increasing the number of charter schools to at least 3,000 by the year 2000. In order to achieve this congressionally set goal, the Secretary of Education is instructed to give prioritized funding to states which allow charter schools a `high degree of autonomy' over their respective budgets and expenditures; have at least one chartering authority which allows for an increase in the number of charter schools each year; and provides for periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering agency of each charter school. Thus, the federal government will use monies seized from the American people to `persuade' the states to create more charter schools with federal specifications. Of course, if the federal government reduced its oppressive level of taxation, the American people would have more resources to devote to education and states would feel less compelled to obey Congressional mandates in order to finance education.

A federal policy of encouraging charter schools represents an exercise in legislative hubris incompatible with ending `the era of big government.' The charter school model may not be appropriate for every state in the nation. Whether or not a charter school is appropriate for a local community is a decision best made by the people in that respective community. Yet, this bill makes it national policy to encourage the formation of charter schools throughout the nation because Congress has determined charter schools are desirable. However, a centralized body such as Congress is institutionally incapable of knowing what reforms work best for every school district in this large and diverse nation. Therefore, rather than expanding federal programs,

Congress should defund the federal education bureaucracy and return control over education to those best suited to design effective education programs--local communities and individual citizens.

Proponents of this bill claim that it expands the educational options available to the nation's children. However, increasing federal involvement in education actually decreases the ability of parents to control their child's education. As a greater percentage of the nation's educational resources are devoted to fulfilling the wishes of Congress, fewer resources will be devoted to fulfilling the wishes of America's parents. This is because some people who would otherwise operate a religious-based school, for example, will instead open charter schools in order to receive federal funds. Since charter schools cannot offer religious instruction, those parents who would send their children to that school if it provided a parochial education are denied the ability to educate their children in accordance with their preferences.

Mr. Chairman, further evidence of how this bill would actually limit educational options can be found in the language making `evaluations' of charter schools one of the stated purposes of the federal charter school program. National evaluation is a process whereby federal bureaucrats determine which are the best education practices, leading to a federally-approved set of `best practices' for charter schools. Over time, charter schools will face pressure, perhaps applied by future Congresses, to adopt those practices favored by the federal government. Language in this bill giving the Secretary of Education the power to make grants based on how well charter schools meet the academic performance requirements guarantees an increasing level of uniformity among the nation's charter schools. This may extend as far as federal control, or at least `oversight,' of the curriculum offered by charter schools!

Defenders of this bill may point out that the statute specifies the review and evaluation of charter schools to determine how well the charter school meets or exceeds state performance standards. However, it is unlikely that any state seeking federal funds would set standards different from those favored by the federal educrats. Furthermore, states applying for federal funds for charter schools must describe to the Secretary the goals of charter schools and the means by which charter schools will be evaluated by the state, as well as the curriculum and instructional practices to be used by the states charter schools, thus giving the Secretary another means by which to impose a uniform federal model of charter schools.

This bill further centralizes education by ratifying the increase of federal expenditures for charter schools to one-hundred million dollars contained in this year's budget and `such sums as necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years.' An authorization of `such sums as necessary' gives appropriators carte blanche to increase appropriations every year. Since federal education programs are funded by taking money from hardworking American taxpayers, increasing federal expenditures on charter schools, or any other education program favored by Congress, leaves America's parents with fewer resources to educate their children in the way they deem fit.

Mr. Chairman, if educational choice is to be the priority, Congress should support large educational tax credits for parents, such as those contained in the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816). Insofar as `he who pays the piper calls the tune,' expanding federal education programs and federal education expenditures will inevitably lead to increased federal control. Conversely, education tax credits will restore parental control over education. Moreover, the tax credit approach is much more consistent with this Congress' stated goal of decentralizing education authority.

In conclusion, this bill, while dressed up in the rhetoric of `fostering educational innovation and increased parental empowerment,' is really yet another unconstitutional infringement upon the rights of states, localities, and, especially, parents to control education.

Charter schools may be a valuable educational reform. However, it is neither the constitutional nor practical role of Congress to encourage states to adopt a particular reform. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and instead, work to eliminate all federal educational programs which interfere with education and, instead, return authority over education to the rightful owner--the American people.

(Italicized paragraphs were entered into record but not spoken because of time constraints.)