PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 28, 1997
Helping Empower Low-income Parents (HELP) Scholarships Amendments of 1997 - Amends title VI (Innovative Education Program Strategies) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to allow any State that has enacted or will enact a law establishing a voluntary public and private school parental choice scholarship program in compliance with specified ESEA requirements to reserve an additional 15 percent from its annual title IV allotment for use exclusively for such parental choice programs. Requires State educational agencies, except in the case of such programs, to distribute 90 percent (currently 85 percent) of title VI funds to local educational agencies based on criteria which gives priority to low-income families and areas. Includes such parental choice programs among State and local uses of title VI funds. Requires such parental choice programs to be located in an area that has the greatest numbers or percentages of children: (1) living in areas with a high concentration of low-income families; (2) from low-income families; or (3) living in sparsely populated areas. Requires such programs to ensure that program participation is limited to families whose family income does not exceed 185 percent of the poverty line. Directs the Comptroller General to make contracts for annual evaluation of each parental choice program. Requires the Secretary of Education to reserve certain funds for such evaluations. Provides that title VI funds to establish a parental choice program shall be considered assistance to the student and shall not be considered as assistance to any school that chooses to participate in such program. Prohibits the Secretary from exercising any direction, supervision, or control over curricula, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any school that chooses to participate in a parental choice program.
People & committees
Rep. Riggs, Frank [R-CA-1] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.
On passage Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 191 - 228 (Roll no. 569).
House roll call 569 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Failed of passage/not agreed to in House: On passage Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 191 - 228 (Roll no. 569).
House roll call 569 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 203 - 215 (Roll no. 568). (consideration: CR H9962-9964)
House roll call 568 · Individual votesFloor summary: DEBBATE - The House proceeded with ten minutes of debate on the motion.
Mr. Etheridge moved to recommit with instructions to Education and the Workforce.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - Pursuand to the provisions of H. Res. 288, the House proceeded with two hours of general debate.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2746 and H.R. 2616.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 288. (consideration: CR H9941-9965)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 288 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2746 and H.R. 2616.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2746 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2746 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2746 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2746 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.