[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 67 (Friday, April 29, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2115-H2128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 706, I call
up the bill (H.R. 4901) to reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity
and Results Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4901
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES IN ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization
Act'' or the ``SOAR Reauthorization Act''.
(b) References in Act.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed in
terms of an amendment to or repeal of a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to
that section or other provision of the Scholarships for
Opportunity and Results Act (division C of Public Law 112-10;
sec. 38-1853.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code).
SEC. 2. REPEAL.
Section 817 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016
(Public Law 114-113) is repealed, and any provision of law
amended or repealed by such section is restored or revived as
if such section had not been enacted into law.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
Section 3003 (sec. 38-1853.03, D.C. Official Code) is
amended by striking ``particularly parents'' and all that
follows through ``, with'' and inserting ``particularly
parents of students who attend an elementary school or
secondary school identified as one of the lowest-performing
schools under the District of Columbia's accountability
system, with''.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITING IMPOSITION OF LIMITS ON TYPES OF ELIGIBLE
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM.
Section 3004(a) (sec. 38-1853.04(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Prohibiting imposition of limits on eligible students
participating in the program.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out the program under this
division, the Secretary may not limit the number of eligible
students receiving scholarships under section 3007(a), and
may not prevent otherwise eligible students from
participating in the program under this division, based on
any of the following:
``(i) The type of school the student previously attended.
``(ii) Whether or not the student previously received a
scholarship or participated in the program, including whether
an eligible student was awarded a scholarship in any previous
year but has not used the scholarship, regardless of the
number of years of nonuse.
``(iii) Whether or not the student was a member of the
control group used by the Institute of Education Sciences to
carry out previous evaluations of the program under section
3009.
``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A)
may be construed to waive the requirement under section
3005(b)(1)(B) that the eligible entity carrying out the
program under this Act must carry out a random selection
process, which gives weight to the priorities described in
section 3006, if more eligible students seek admission in the
program than the program can accommodate.''.
SEC. 5. REQUIRING ELIGIBLE ENTITIES TO UTILIZE INTERNAL
FISCAL AND QUALITY CONTROLS.
Section 3005(b)(1) (sec. 38-1853.05(b)(1), D.C. Official
Code) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``, except that a
participating school may not be required to submit to more
than 1 site visit per school year'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (K) and (L) as
subparagraphs (L) and (M), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following:
``(K) how the entity will ensure the financial viability of
participating schools in which 85 percent or more of the
total number of students enrolled at the school are
participating eligible students that receive and use an
opportunity scholarship;'';
(4) in subparagraph (L), as redesignated by paragraph (2),
by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(N) how the eligible entity will ensure that it--
``(i) utilizes internal fiscal and quality controls; and
``(ii) complies with applicable financial reporting
requirements and the requirements of this division; and''.
SEC. 6. CLARIFICATION OF PRIORITIES FOR AWARDING SCHOLARSHIPS
TO ELIGIBLE STUDENTS.
Section 3006(1) (sec. 38-1853.06(1), D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``attended'' and all
that follows through the semicolon and inserting ``attended
an elementary school or secondary school identified as one of
the lowest-performing schools under the District of
Columbia's accountability system; and'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (B);
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
and
(4) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated by paragraph (3),
by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``or
whether such students have, in the past, attended a private
school;''.
SEC. 7. MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATING
SCHOOLS AND ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.
(a) Criminal Background Checks; Compliance With Reporting
Requirements.--Section 3007(a)(4) (sec. 38-1853.07(a)(4),
D.C. Official Code) is amended--
[[Page H2116]]
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the
following:
``(F) ensures that, with respect to core subject matter,
participating students are taught by a teacher who has a
baccalaureate degree or equivalent degree, whether such
degree was awarded in or outside of the United States;''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) conducts criminal background checks on school
employees who have direct and unsupervised interaction with
students; and
``(H) complies with all requests for data and information
regarding the reporting requirements described in section
3010.''.
(b) Accreditation.--Section 3007(a) (sec. 38-1853.07(a),
D.C. Official Code), as amended by subsection (a), is further
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and
(3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (5)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Accreditation requirements.--
``(A) In general.--None of the funds provided under this
division for opportunity scholarships may be used by a
participating eligible student to enroll in a participating
private school unless the school--
``(i) in the case of a school that is a participating
school as of the date of enactment of the SOAR
Reauthorization Act--
``(I) is fully accredited by an accrediting body described
in any of subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 2202(16)
of the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104-134; sec. 38-1802.02(16)(A)-(G), D.C. Official Code);
or
``(II) if such participating school does not meet the
requirements of subclause (I)--
``(aa) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-
113), the school is pursuing full accreditation by an
accrediting body described in subclause (I); and
``(bb) is fully accredited by such an accrediting body not
later than 5 years after the date on which that school began
the process of pursuing full accreditation in accordance with
item (aa); and
``(ii) in the case of a school that is not a participating
school as of the date of enactment of the SOAR
Reauthorization Act, is fully accredited by an accrediting
body described in clause (i)(I) before becoming a
participating school under this division.
``(B) Reports to eligible entity.--Not later than 5 years
after the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act,
each participating school shall submit to the eligible entity
a certification that the school has been fully accredited in
accordance with subparagraph (A).
``(C) Assisting students in enrolling in other schools.--If
a participating school fails to meet the requirements of this
paragraph, the eligible entity shall assist the parents of
the participating eligible students who attend the school in
identifying, applying to, and enrolling in another
participating school under this division.
``(6) Treatment of students awarded a scholarship in a
previous year.--An eligible entity shall treat a
participating eligible student who was awarded an opportunity
scholarship in any previous year and who has not used the
scholarship as a renewal student and not as a new applicant,
without regard as to--
``(A) whether the eligible student has used the
scholarship; and
``(B) the year in which the scholarship was previously
awarded.''.
(c) Requiring Use of Funds Remaining Unobligated From
Previous Fiscal Years.--
(1) In general.--Section 3007 (sec. 38-1853.07, D.C.
Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Requiring Use of Funds Remaining Unobligated From
Previous Fiscal Years.--
``(1) In general.--To the extent that any funds
appropriated for the opportunity scholarship program under
this division for any fiscal year remain available for
subsequent fiscal years under section 3014(c), the Secretary
shall make such funds available to eligible entities
receiving grants under section 3004(a) for the uses described
in paragraph (2)--
``(A) in the case of any remaining funds that were
appropriated before the date of enactment of the SOAR
Reauthorization Act, beginning on the date of enactment of
such Act; and
``(B) in the case of any remaining funds appropriated on or
after the date of enactment of such Act, by the first day of
the first subsequent fiscal year.
``(2) Use of funds.--If an eligible entity to which the
Secretary provided additional funds under paragraph (1)
elects to use such funds during a fiscal year, the eligible
entity shall use--
``(A) not less than 95 percent of such additional funds to
provide additional scholarships for eligible students under
section 3007(a), or to increase the amount of the
scholarships, during such year; and
``(B) not more than a total of 5 percent of such additional
funds for administrative expenses, parental assistance, or
tutoring, as described in subsections (b) and (c), during
such year.
``(3) Special rule.--Any amounts made available for
administrative expenses, parental assistance, or tutoring
under paragraph (2)(B) shall be in addition to any other
amounts made available for such purposes in accordance with
subsections (b) and (c).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Use of Funds for Administrative Expenses and Parental
Assistance.--Section 3007 (sec. 38-1853.07, D.C. Official
Code), as amended by this section, is further amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Administrative Expenses and Parental Assistance.--The
Secretary shall make $2,000,000 of the amount made available
under section 3014(a)(1) for each fiscal year available to
eligible entities receiving a grant under section 3004(a) to
cover the following expenses:
``(1) The administrative expenses of carrying out its
program under this division during the year, including--
``(A) determining the eligibility of students to
participate;
``(B) selecting the eligible students to receive
scholarships;
``(C) determining the amount of the scholarships and
issuing the scholarships to eligible students;
``(D) compiling and maintaining financial and programmatic
records;
``(E) conducting site visits as described in section
3005(b)(1)(I); and
``(F)(i) conducting a study, including a survey of
participating parents, on any barriers for participating
eligible students in gaining admission to, or attending, the
participating school that is their first choice; and
``(ii) not later than the end of the first full fiscal year
after the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act,
submitting a report to Congress that contains the results of
such study.
``(2) The expenses of educating parents about the eligible
entity's program under this division, and assisting parents
through the application process under this division,
including--
``(A) providing information about the program and the
participating schools to parents of eligible students,
including information on supplemental financial aid that may
be available at participating schools;
``(B) providing funds to assist parents of students in
meeting expenses that might otherwise preclude the
participation of eligible students in the program; and
``(C) streamlining the application process for parents.'';
and
(2) by redesignating subsection (d), and subsection (e) (as
added by subsection (c)(1)), as subsections (c) and (d),
respectively.
(e) Clarification of Use of Funds for Student Academic
Assistance.--Section 3007(c) (sec. 38-1853.07(c), D.C.
Official Code), as redesignated by subsection (d)(2), is
amended by striking ``previously attended'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting
``previously attended an elementary school or secondary
school identified as one of the lowest-performing schools
under the District of Columbia's accountability system.''.
SEC. 8. PROGRAM EVALUATION.
(a) Revision of Evaluation Procedures and Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Section 3009(a) (sec. 38-1853.09(a), D.C.
Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Duties of the secretary and the mayor.--The Secretary
and the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall--
``(A) jointly enter into an agreement with the Institute of
Education Sciences of the Department of Education to evaluate
annually the opportunity scholarship program under this
division;
``(B) jointly enter into an agreement to monitor and
evaluate the use of funds authorized and appropriated for the
District of Columbia public schools and the District of
Columbia public charter schools under this division; and
``(C) make the evaluations described in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) public in accordance with subsection (c).
``(2) Duties of the secretary.--The Secretary, through a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, shall--
``(A) ensure that the evaluation under paragraph (1)(A)--
``(i) is conducted using an acceptable quasi-experimental
research design for determining the effectiveness of the
opportunity scholarship program under this division that does
not use a control study group consisting of students who
applied for but did not receive opportunity scholarships; and
``(ii) addresses the issues described in paragraph (4); and
``(B) disseminate information on the impact of the
program--
``(i) in increasing academic achievement and educational
attainment of participating eligible students who use an
opportunity scholarship; and
``(ii) on students and schools in the District of Columbia.
``(3) Duties of the institute of education sciences.--The
Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of
Education shall--
``(A) assess participating eligible students who use an
opportunity scholarship in each of grades 3 through 8, as
well as one of the grades at the high school level, by
supervising the administration of the same reading and
mathematics assessment used by the District of Columbia
public schools to comply with section 1111(b) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b));
[[Page H2117]]
``(B) measure the academic achievement of all participating
eligible students who use an opportunity scholarship in the
grades described in subparagraph (A); and
``(C) work with eligible entities receiving a grant under
this division to ensure that the parents of each student who
is a participating eligible student that uses an opportunity
scholarship agrees to permit their child to participate in
the evaluations and assessments carried out by the Institute
of Education Sciences under this subsection.
``(4) Issues to be evaluated.--The issues to be evaluated
under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the following:
``(A) A comparison of the academic achievement of
participating eligible students who use an opportunity
scholarship on the measurements described in paragraph (3)(B)
to the academic achievement of a comparison group of students
with similar backgrounds in the District of Columbia public
schools.
``(B) The success of the program under this division in
expanding choice options for parents of participating
eligible students and increasing the satisfaction of such
parents and students with their choice.
``(C) The reasons parents of participating eligible
students choose for their children to participate in the
program, including important characteristics for selecting
schools.
``(D) A comparison of the retention rates, high school
graduation rates, college enrollment rates, college
persistence rates, and college graduation rates of
participating eligible students who use an opportunity
scholarship with the rates of students in the comparison
group described in subparagraph (A).
``(E) A comparison of the college enrollment rates, college
persistence rates, and college graduation rates of students
who participated in the program in 2004, 2005, 2011, 2012,
2013, 2014, and 2015 as the result of winning the Opportunity
Scholarship Program lottery with such enrollment,
persistence, and graduation rates for students who entered
but did not win such lottery in those years and who, as a
result, served as the control group for previous evaluations
of the program under this division. Nothing in this
subparagraph may be construed to waive section
3004(a)(3)(A)(iii) with respect to any such student.
``(F) A comparison of the safety of the schools attended by
participating eligible students who use an opportunity
scholarship and the schools in the District of Columbia
attended by students in the comparison group described in
subparagraph (A), based on the perceptions of the students
and parents.
``(G) An assessment of student academic achievement at
participating schools in which 85 percent of the total number
of students enrolled at the school are participating eligible
students who receive and use an opportunity scholarship.
``(H) Such other issues with respect to participating
eligible students who use an opportunity scholarship as the
Secretary considers appropriate for inclusion in the
evaluation, such as the impact of the program on public
elementary schools and secondary schools in the District of
Columbia.
``(5) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--
``(A) In general.--Any disclosure of personally
identifiable information obtained under this division shall
be in compliance with section 444 of the General Education
Provisions Act (commonly known as the `Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974') (20 U.S.C. 1232g).
``(B) Students not attending public schools.--With respect
to any student who is not attending a public elementary
school or secondary school, personally identifiable
information obtained under this division shall only be
disclosed to--
``(i) individuals carrying out the evaluation described in
paragraph (1)(A) for such student;
``(ii) the group of individuals providing information for
carrying out the evaluation of such student; and
``(iii) the parents of such student.''.
(2) Transition of evaluation.--
(A) Termination of previous evaluations.--The Secretary of
Education shall--
(i) terminate the evaluations conducted under section
3009(a) of the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act
(sec. 38-1853.09(a), D.C. Official Code), as in effect on the
day before the date of enactment of this Act, after obtaining
data for the 2016-2017 school year; and
(ii) submit any reports required for the 2016-2017 school
year or preceding years with respect to the evaluations in
accordance with section 3009(b) of such Act.
(B) New evaluations.--
(i) In general.--Effective beginning with respect to the
2017-2018 school year, the Secretary shall conduct new
evaluations in accordance with the provisions of section
3009(a) of the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act
(sec. 38-1853.09(a), D.C. Official Code), as amended by this
Act.
(ii) Most recent evaluation.--As a component of the new
evaluations described in clause (i), the Secretary shall
continue to monitor and evaluate the students who were
evaluated in the most recent evaluation under such section
prior to the date of enactment of this Act, including by
monitoring and evaluating the test scores and other
information of such students.
(b) Duty of Mayor To Ensure Institute Has All Information
Necessary To Carry Out Evaluations.--Section 3011(a)(1) (sec.
38-1853.11(a)(1), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Information necessary to carry out evaluations.--
Ensure that all District of Columbia public schools and
District of Columbia public charter schools make available to
the Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of
Education all of the information the Institute requires to
carry out the assessments and perform the evaluations
required under section 3009(a).''.
SEC. 9. FUNDING FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND
PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.
(a) Mandatory Withholding of Funds for Failure To Comply
With Conditions.--Section 3011(b) (sec. 38-1853.11(b), D.C.
Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Enforcement.--If, after reasonable notice and an
opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary determines that the
Mayor has failed to comply with any of the requirements of
subsection (a), the Secretary may withhold from the Mayor, in
whole or in part--
``(1) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated
under section 3014(a)(2), if the failure to comply relates to
the District of Columbia public schools;
``(2) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated
under section 3014(a)(3), if the failure to comply relates to
the District of Columbia public charter schools; or
``(3) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated
under both paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 3014(a), if the
failure relates to both the District of Columbia public
schools and the District of Columbia public charter
schools.''.
(b) Rules for Use of Funds Provided for Support of Public
Charter Schools.--Section 3011 (sec. 38-1853.11, D.C.
Official Code), as amended by section 7(b) and section 8(a),
is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Specific Rules Regarding Funds Provided for Support
of Public Charter Schools.--The following rules shall apply
with respect to the funds provided under this division for
the support of District of Columbia public charter schools:
``(1) The Secretary may direct the funds provided for any
fiscal year, or any portion thereof, to the Office of the
State Superintendent of Education of the District of
Columbia.
``(2) The Office of the State Superintendent of Education
of the District of Columbia may transfer the funds to
subgrantees that are--
``(A) specific District of Columbia public charter schools
or networks of such schools; or
``(B) District of Columbia-based nonprofit organizations
with experience in successfully providing support or
assistance to District of Columbia public charter schools or
networks of such schools.
``(3) The funds provided under this division for the
support of District of Columbia public charter schools shall
be available to any District of Columbia public charter
school in good standing with the District of Columbia Charter
School Board, and the Office of the State Superintendent of
Education of the District of Columbia and the District of
Columbia Charter School Board may not restrict the
availability of such funds to certain types of schools on the
basis of the school's location, governing body, or the
school's facilities.''.
SEC. 10. REVISION OF CURRENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
Not later than the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year,
the Secretary of Education and the Mayor of the District of
Columbia shall revise the memorandum of understanding which
is in effect under section 3012(d) of the Scholarships for
Opportunity and Results Act as of the day before the date of
the enactment of this Act to address the following:
(1) The amendments made by this Act.
(2) The need to ensure that participating schools under the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act meet fire code
standards and maintain certificates of occupancy.
(3) The need to ensure that District of Columbia public
schools and District of Columbia public charter schools meet
the requirements under such Act to comply with all reasonable
requests for information necessary to carry out the
evaluations required under section 3009(a) of such Act.
SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.
Section 3013 (sec. 38-1853.13, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (10) as
paragraphs (2) through (11), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated by
paragraph (1), the following:
``(1) Core subject matter.--The term `core subject matter'
means--
``(A) mathematics;
``(B) science; and
``(C) English, reading, or language arts.''; and
(3) in paragraph (4)(B)(ii), as redesignated by paragraph
(1), by inserting ``household with a'' before ``student''.
SEC. 12. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 3014 (sec. 38-1853.14, D.C.
Official Code) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and for each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``and for each fiscal
year through fiscal year 2021''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under subsection
(a)(1), including amounts
[[Page H2118]]
appropriated and available under such subsection before the
date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, shall
remain available until expended.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(2) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this
Act shall apply with respect to school year 2017-2018 and
each succeeding school year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
General Leave
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4901.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are here to pass an important bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill is H.R.
4901, known as the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results
Reauthorization Act, or SOAR.
The SOAR Act continues a three-sector approach to education within
the District of Columbia. The bill provides equal funding to D.C.
public schools, D.C. public charter schools, and the Opportunity
Scholarship Program which is commonly known as the OSP.
The OSP provides scholarships to students of low-income families,
many of whom would otherwise attend low-performing schools. This
program is bringing about educational opportunities to those who need
it most.
Now, to some, this may sound familiar because in October of last
year, we considered H.R. 10, also a bill to reauthorize the SOAR Act.
But H.R. 4901 is very similar to H.R. 10; however, after H.R. 10 passed
the House, changes were made to it through a bipartisan negotiation
with the Senate. These changes actually strengthened the bill, and we
are pleased to support this today.
The new bill brings greater transparency and accountability to the
OSP through increased reporting requirements. The new bill strengthens
accreditation requirements, and the new bill clarifies congressional
intent around the use of carryover funds and access to the OSP. Out of
a commitment to regular order and the understanding of how important
this legislation is, we wanted Members to have the opportunity to
debate and vote on these changes, which we did in our committee, and it
passed out of our committee. Thus, we introduced H.R. 4901.
We improved the legislation, and now we are bringing it before the
Chamber in an effort to pass the bill in its best possible form. I hope
the House will see the value of this bill as it benefits families in
the District, specifically low-income families in the District of
Columbia.
The average income of a family with an OSP student is $22,000 per
year. Let me say that again. The average income of a family with an OSP
student is $22,000. This program offers these families more than just a
scholarship, it is a lifeline. One OSP parent went so far as to
describe the OSP as her salvation.
Mr. Speaker, the OSP is working. In the 2014-2015 school year, OSP
students had a graduation rate of 90 percent. Ninety percent graduation
rate. That should indicate to a lot of people that this thing is
working. That is well above the national average of 82 percent and is
certainly better than the average within the D.C. public schools, which
is only about 64 percent.
However, I would be remiss if I did not note that the D.C. public
schools increased their graduation rate 6 percentage points from 2014
to 2015, and we applaud that and hope that continues. That is in part
because this three-sector approach is actually working.
Opponents of the SOAR Act want to stop this legislation because they
disagree with the OSP for purely ideological reasons. In fact,
opponents, just like their supporters, know that OSP students do as
well, if not better, on every measure compared to the public school
counterparts. Opponents will likely even support allowing current OSP
students to remain in the program until they finish high school.
If the OSP is so bad, though, it makes no sense to allow children to
remain in it. The truth is that the program works, and we should
reauthorize it so it can work for even more children. Unfortunately,
opponents of the OSP will seek to end the entire three-sector approach
in an effort to simply stop the OSP.
I do want to note that the Washington, D.C., Mayor, the D.C. Council
chairman, and seven other members of the D.C. Council sent a letter to
the congressional leadership urging the reauthorization of this
program. The Mayor and a majority of the D.C. Council recognize the
value of this legislation and are asking that we stand with them and
not forsake the children of the District of Columbia.
A March 2016 letter signed by the Mayor and 8 of the 13 Members of
the D.C. Council supporting the SOAR Act will be entered into the
Record. The letter states: ``These funds are critical to the gains that
the District's public education system has seen in recent years.''
It goes on to note how important the SOAR Act has been in maintaining
and recruiting quality teachers and principals. District officials show
strong support for this legislation, as does the Washington, D.C.,
community.
We are thrilled to have found common ground on this bill, and I
welcome the District's support. I thank them for their valuable work in
getting this legislation to this point. I am also excited that the SOAR
Act is supported by the Washington Post. I will be inserting in the
Record a position they took on March 14, 2016, to that effect.
Mr. Speaker, the SOAR Act's purpose is to improve education within
the District, and I believe it is doing just that within public
schools, charter schools, and the OSPs. It is providing families with a
valuable choice, and it is allowing them to escape other situations
that would not be nearly as conducive to their families.
I don't understand why the critics of the OSP are so opposed to the
program, especially since it produces graduation rates far above the
national average. This feat is even more notable when you realize that
the OSP achieves better graduation rates than D.C. public schools at
only two-thirds of the cost, so you get better graduation rates, and it
is two-thirds of the cost of D.C. public schools.
I recognize the importance of our public education system and the
need for public school improvement. That is why the legislation also
authorizes funds for public education. We must recognize the reality
before us. This past year, D.C. eighth graders had the lowest test
scores in the Nation in math and reading, some of the most critical
skills that they need to be successful in life. While D.C. public
schools have made progress, clearly, much remains to be done.
Mr. Speaker, students within the District should not have to wait for
these changes to come about. They deserve an alternative, a quality
education, and they deserve it now. Let's work to improve public
education in the District, but let's not hold back current students
while those improvements happen. Let's allow them every opportunity
available, such as an opportunity scholarship.
We are here today to debate a bill that works in every way to further
the educational outcomes of Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, also let me just take a personal note to thank Speaker
Boehner for his passion on this issue. For years he has championed
this. He has done it in his private time, he did it in his public life,
he did it as a Member of Congress, and he did it as the Speaker of the
House. This was his. He championed this. It has been successful, and I
am glad to carry the baton and make sure that there is school choice
within Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a mother, I believe parents should seize any and
every educational opportunity available to their
[[Page H2119]]
children, so I certainly have no criticism of my own constituents who
have seized this opportunity. In fact, in order to avoid disruption of
the education of the current voucher students, I believe they should be
allowed to remain in the program until high school graduation, and
President Obama has offered a compromise to allow them to do so.
Consideration of this bill surely is unprecedented. Until today, I
had never seen the House vote on virtually the same bill a second time
in the same Congress, and that is about to happen here. The House,
acted in October.
Why is this House acting redundantly again? Shouldn't the focus be on
the Republican-led Senate where neither this bill--which is virtually
the same as the bill that was passed before--nor its Senate companion
has moved?
Last December, the Senate committee of jurisdiction canceled a
scheduled markup of the bill to protect Republicans from this bill and
especially from the civil rights amendments that had been proposed to
the bill. Just last month, Chairman Chaffetz himself--who is the
chairman of the authorizing committee, and the subcommittee--requested
that the bill be included in the upcoming--the upcoming--2017
appropriation bill because the chairman, knows that legislation on an
appropriation is how this bill is going to be passed.
The problem is that there is little congressional support for
vouchers except for vouchers in the District of Columbia, where nobody
can vote for anybody except this Member. Congress has refused to create
a national voucher program. Just last year during reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, both the House and the
Senate voted on several national voucher amendments, and each failed.
So you see, they don't want vouchers in their own districts.
Moreover, the Congress has never authorized the D.C. voucher program
in the light of day. When Congress first created the program in 2004,
and then reauthorized it in 2011, it did so by adding the voucher bill
as riders to appropriations bills. And to protect Republican Senators
running for reelection this year, that is what is going to happen
again. The Senate has never passed a standalone D.C. vouchers bill, and
yet it is being reauthorized now for the third time.
In this Congress alone, Republicans have introduced legislation to
overturn D.C.'s gun safety laws, its laws on reproductive health, its
laws on nondiscrimination, its laws on marijuana, on labor, on
immigration, and on education. It is, therefore, ironic to hear
Republicans favorably cite the support of some D.C. government
officials for passage of this bill.
Now, let me explain that because I don't want my colleagues to get
away with mischaracterizing the position of the D.C. government on the
bill before us today. When the House voted this bill last year, a
majority of the D.C. Council wrote to Congress opposed to this voucher
program. Last month, however, fearing the loss of $40 million for
public and charter schools, a bare majority wrote in support of this
bill. You can't blame them.
I must say though, I am being hoisted on my own petard here.
Ironically, the funding for public schools and public charter schools
exists only because during the creation of the voucher program, I
repeatedly said that funding for public and charter schools was the
preference of D.C. residents. To his everlasting credit, the then-
Archbishop of Washington then insisted that public and charter schools
also receive funding in conjunction with the voucher funding.
The D.C. Mayor and a bare majority this year of the council sent a
carefully crafted letter supporting this bill because they knew they
were writing for the residents of the District of Columbia who do not
support vouchers. Their letter did not support the voucher program
itself, but referred only to the bill's public and charter school
funding.
{time} 0930
Those who signed the letter, by the way, were even more concerned
that the Congress, instead, could pass the radical Cruz-Meadows bill,
which would permit D.C. students to use local funds, commandeer local
funds, from the D.C. treasury to pay for private schools.
City officials recognized--and who can blame them--that Republicans
have conditioned reauthorization of the public and charter school
funding on reauthorization of the voucher funding. I understand their
concern about losing public and charter school funding because it has
been part of the city's education budget for a decade.
There is, of course, no reason for a unique Federal voucher program
in the District of Columbia, in particular. According to the study of
the program's effectiveness mandated by Congress, by statute, the D.C.
voucher program has failed in its stated purpose. That purpose was to
improve academic achievement. The voucher program has not improved
academic achievement, as measured by math and reading test scores of
students overall or of students the program prioritized from low-
performing public schools.
Republicans, rightly, were disappointed with these results, so guess
what they did. Instead of getting rid of a failed program, they simply
changed the evaluation. The prior reauthorizations required the
program's evaluation to be ``conducted using the strongest possible
research designed,'' and a randomized controlled trial--the gold
standard--was therefore used.
It is almost laughable when somebody changes the test in order to
pass it. In contrast, this bill requires the evaluation to be
conducted--this time--using an acceptable--that means any acceptable--
``quasi-experimental research design'' and expressly prohibits the
randomized controlled trial that was mandated before.
This dishonesty is transparent, Mr. Speaker. As researchers
conducting an evaluation of the program point out, a randomized
controlled study ``is especially important in the context of school
choice because families wanting to apply for a choice program may have
educational goals and aspirations that differ from the average
family.''
The voucher program is also unnecessary. The District of Columbia has
an unusually robust public school choice system, and it is available to
every student. Now, I would wager that the District's choice system is
the best in the Nation, and here is what it is.
Almost 50 percent of our children go to charter schools. Those
charter schools were authorized when I worked with Speaker Newt
Gingrich to allow charter schools instead of vouchers to be the
District's alternative school system. For the public schools, 75
percent of our children attend out-of-boundary public schools that they
have chosen. So I ask any Member who has public choice that robust to
make himself known during this debate.
The D.C. voucher program also exempts students from protection of
Federal civil rights laws that apply to public and federally funded
programs. Under the voucher program, the Federal funding is considered
assistance to the voucher student and not to the school, apparently in
order to avoid these important mandates for our schools. Therefore, the
program is not considered a federally funded program, although the
money comes from Federal funds.
This program is exempt from title IV and title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, from title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, from
the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and titles
II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Everybody knows that this program is going to be reauthorized as a
rider on an appropriations bill, which is how the D.C. vouchers bill
has always been enacted, in 2004 and again in 2011.
This is a masquerade here this morning. I am sorry Members had to be
held over. This could have been taken care of yesterday. Even if the
bill is not reauthorized, however, everyone expects that Republicans
will continue to fund the three sectors, as they have always done.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, it is correct that the Republicans have
continued to fund the three-sector approach in Washington, D.C., and I
am proud of that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Messer), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4901, the
[[Page H2120]]
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
I want to commend Chairman Chaffetz for his work on this important
policy and for continuing the legacy of former Speaker Boehner on this
important issue.
Make no mistake about it, thousands of kids have access to the
American Dream because of Speaker Boehner's dedication to the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program and education choice across the
country.
I met one of those students in February during a hearing on Capitol
Hill. Her name was Denisha Merriweather. Denisha provided some powerful
testimony that I will not soon forget. She spoke of being locked in a
failing school, and she said: ``When I was growing up, college was a
dream that I didn't even know that I had, and if it weren't for an
educational option Florida gave me 12 years ago, I wouldn't be here
today.''
Ms. Merriweather is the first in her family to graduate from high
school and college, and she is now attending graduate school. That is
powerful stuff, and it is just one example of the thousands of young
people in America whose lives have been changed by school choice.
As chairman of the Congressional School Choice Caucus, I believe
every child in America deserves the same kind of opportunity that
Denisha had. But right now, for the majority of students in this
country, real educational choice only exists if you can afford it.
Ask yourself this question: If your local school is failing your
child and you can't afford to move and you can't afford to pay for
private school, what options do you really have?
Make no mistake about it, that is the truth for thousands of key
people here in Washington, D.C., and, frankly, all across the country.
They are locked in a failing school that is failing their child, and
they can't afford to move and they can't afford to pay for a private
school. They are stuck.
That is why school choice and the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program matters. Programs like D.C. OSP empower parents to choose the
best educational environment for their child, regardless of their
income, their ZIP Code, or their lot in life. And despite some of the
rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, this program takes zero
dollars from D.C. Public Schools--zero dollars. Yet D.C. OSP has a big
impact on D.C. students. In fact, the program lets more than 6,000
students attend the school that gives them the best opportunity to
succeed. And even better, an incredible 90 percent--90 percent--of D.C.
OSP students graduate from high school on time, an incredible success.
It turns out that empowering parents and empowering students works.
We have miles to go before every kid in America has access to a great
school. This issue is far bigger than just D.C. schools. But today's
bill will ensure that thousands of kids in Washington, D.C., have an
opportunity, and every one of those kids matter.
This bill is worthy of our support. I ask my colleagues for their
support.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is so concerned about the
millions of parents who can't afford to send their children to private
schools, his caucus had the perfect opportunity this year, because they
have such a strong majority, to, in fact, pass voucher amendments, and
they refused to do so for their own schools.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly), my friend.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the District of
Columbia for yielding.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 4901.
Contrary to its title and contrary to what you just heard, this
voucher program for schoolchildren in the District of Columbia has
neither expanded opportunities nor delivered results for those students
and their families. It has actually proven to be an unwise and
unwelcome use of tax dollars, which ought to be of great concern to my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Yet, rather than call for
increased scrutiny, they are forcing the House to once again vote on a
bill on which this Chamber has already acted.
In successive reports on the effectiveness of this program, the
Department of Education has determined that students using these
vouchers saw no statistically significant improvement in their overall
achievement in math or reading--none.
In addition, the Department found that both parents and students from
schools in need of improvement, the program's intended beneficiaries,
reported that their experience with the voucher program did not--not--
improve their level of satisfaction with the education system or the
education they were receiving.
I also find it extremely cynical that this reauthorization would
weaken the very reporting requirements that have shown this program to
be ineffective. When you don't like the findings, I guess we suppress
them.
Further, the Government Accountability Office has cited the program
for not having sufficient financial controls and accountability
measures, something I thought we favored. For example, the D.C.
Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, which administers the
program, repeatedly failed to comply with statutory financial reporting
deadlines, and its ``policies and procedures lack detail in several
areas related to school compliance and financial accounting'' to ensure
Federal tax dollars are being used in accordance with the law.
Mr. Speaker, I also hope the great irony of this legislation is not
lost on my colleagues. Those who claim to support the conservative
principles of small government would again authorize $60 million in
taxpayer subsidies for a program that has failed to meet expectations
for both educational achievement and financial stewardship. I guess
there are carve-outs for our ideological favorites.
Further, self-proclaimed states' rights conservatives are once again
willing to impose the will of Congress on a local government--the
District of Columbia--and they do it because they can. So much for Big
Brother; so much for telling somebody we know best.
Finally, I want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle
of the principles they espoused just last year when we worked in
bipartisan fashion to pass legislation reforming No Child Left Behind.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. CONNOLLY. In their own explanatory material for the Every Student
Succeeds Act, Republicans say the new reforms are intended to restore
local control by returning responsibility for accountability and school
improvement to State and local leaders. Why doesn't that apply here?
Another ideological carve-out, Mr. Speaker.
Congress has no business imposing its will on the schools and
families of the District of Columbia in this fashion. They are not
guinea pigs for our ideological favorites.
{time} 0945
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Education and the Workforce
Committee.
Mr. KLINE. I thank Chairman Chaffetz for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the SOAR
Reauthorization Act, which will renew our vital investment in the
children who live in the District of Columbia.
In passing the Every Student Succeeds Act last year, we took
important steps to support and encourage greater school choice for
students and their families. These reforms empower parents to do what
is best for their children's education, and they help ensure that all
children are able to receive the excellent education they deserve
regardless of their family's background, income, or ZIP Code. Helping
students escape failing schools so they can pursue brighter futures is
an important priority, and that is exactly what the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program does for children in our Nation's Capital.
For more than 10 years now, the program has enabled thousands of
students to pursue the quality education necessary to excel both in the
classroom and later in life--and excel they do. In fact, last year, 90
percent of 12th graders who received a scholarship through the program
graduated from high school, and nearly 90 percent of them, Mr. Speaker,
went on to pursue college degrees. The traditional D.C.
[[Page H2121]]
public school system can make no such claim. These are very impressive
results. Despite the claims of those who oppose these schools for,
apparently, purely ideological, partisan reasons, with results like
these--90 percent graduate, and 90 percent of those go on to college--
it makes those claims that these schools are not performing well,
frankly, laughable.
This legislation also authorizes support for D.C. public schools, and
it will provide critical resources for its charter schools. I agree
with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that the public
charter schools in the District are performing well. They are giving
some hope to mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers that
their children will have a chance in life. I am very proud of those
public charter schools. There are also parents--Presidents of the
United States and so forth--who choose to send their kids to private
schools, and that opportunity ought to exist for more children--for
more students--in the District of Columbia. That is what the
Opportunity Scholarship Program does. It provides another chance--
another avenue, another road to hope--for children in our Nation's
Capital.
Together, these measures are working to improve the traditional
public schools that are struggling and that are still, too often,
failing students--which is why there is a waiting line to get into
charter schools and into private schools--and will make a positive
impact in the lives of students across the District and will create
much-needed educational opportunities for these children.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want the gentleman from Minnesota to know that there are waiting
lines in the District of Columbia to get into many D.C. public schools
and, of course, into many charter schools. We also know nothing about
the schools that tell us 90 percent of their children graduate because
this House has no information on them. What we do know is that the
randomized study took children in D.C. public schools and compared them
to students at exactly the same levels in the voucher schools--no
difference in overall achievement. That is how we measure achievement
in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
4901, which would reauthorize the D.C. voucher program, known as the
D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, through 2021.
We don't spend enough money on education, so it is hard to justify
diverting scarce public resources in order to finance private school
education for a handful of students at the expense of the vast majority
who attend public schools. Instead, we should focus our limited public
resources on initiatives that improve education for all of our
children. This is the promise of a public school education in the
United States, but the voucher programs undermine that promise while
hiding behind the guise of school choice for students in need.
There are about 50 participating schools in the Washington, D.C.,
Opportunity Scholarship Program, but more than half of all of the
participants are enrolled in just eight schools. Most of the schools in
the program have higher tuition than the voucher covers, limiting the
utility of the voucher and shifting the cost of education to the
families that can't afford it--essentially, denying the opportunity to
students whose families cannot afford the remainder of the tuition.
Federal dollars are being provided to a small number of parents who can
afford the choice and to others with students who are already enrolled
in private schools when that money could have been used for our public
school systems.
Although there are a few who can participate in the program, as the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia said, the results are
disappointing. Research consistently demonstrates that the D.C. voucher
program is an ineffective program that does not increase achievement.
The four reports produced by the Department of Education found no
improvement in reading and math after entering the voucher program for
students coming from the most struggling D.C. public schools, nor did
they find any statistically significant difference in math and reading
academic performance from D.C. public schools. On average, Mr. Speaker,
these schools are, at best, average.
When you cite statistics that say some may be doing well, you have to
take into consideration that these are children from families who are
very supportive of their children and that they would be doing well
whether they were in the voucher program or not.
In addition to the disappointing results, we also found the voucher
participants were less likely to have access to English language
programs, special education supports, counselors, and other vital
supports that ensure that all students remain on the path of academic
success.
If the schools are not producing the promised results, why are we
providing them with unrestricted Federal dollars?
Mr. Speaker, we could have improved the bill. We have a closed rule,
so amendments were not allowed, but there were several amendments that
should have been considered that I had offered. One would have
protected the civil rights of students at schools that receive vouchers
by requiring schools to certify that they provide each student with
applicable civil rights protections. Another would have required any
school receiving funds under this program to comply with the same
Federal data and reporting requirements that all public schools or
other schools receiving Federal money have to provide. All of our
congressional districts provide this information, but, unfortunately,
it is not required under the voucher program.
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to spend $20 million to fund education
in the District of Columbia, we ought to use it to improve education
for everyone, not just for a few. This bill uses the money to help a
few parents by subsidizing tuition in private schools, which many were
already attending, at the expense of many, and it extends a program
that fails to actually improve the education for students in
Washington, D.C.
I join the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia in opposing this
legislation.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, the graduation rate in the D.C. public
schools is 64 percent. The graduation rate at the OSP program is 90
percent. Those are results, and they are worth every penny.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker),
a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, there are few times in this House that we
can see an immediate impact from legislation. A few months ago, I
remember meeting some families who were given a choice in the SOAR Act.
I remember seeing the pride in their faces, but what I remember most
was the hope they had--a hope that was new, a new hope in the future.
America has always been about opportunity. The SOAR Act does exactly
what it says in its title--Scholarships for Opportunity and Results
Act. The SOAR Act is impacting lives today, but it is changing lives
forever.
Upward mobility starts with a strong education. It reminds me of my
background in working with some gospel music arrangers. I was surprised
at the high volume of sales in this particular industry, and one of the
arrangers summed it up this way. He said: ``Mark, ain't nobody likes it
but the people.''
To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who oppose the SOAR
Act and who oppose parents in having this opportunity, let me say this:
Ain't nobody likes it but the people.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah has 16
minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Public schools in the United States and big cities are improving, and
it should be noted that the D.C. Public Schools district continues to
be the fastest improving urban school district
[[Page H2122]]
in the United States, according to data released from the 2015 Trial
Urban District Assessment. These schools deserve support. They are
improving test scores unlike the voucher schools. In comparing the
randomized study of those who wanted the voucher and didn't get it and
who remained in the District public school system with those who wanted
the voucher and got it, there was no difference in their math and
English scores.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that point, if you select
students from families who can afford the tuition and who are very
supportive of their students, is it a surprise that they may do better
in graduation rates than the average?
Ms. NORTON. In reclaiming my time, the gentleman has brought up a
very important point.
By the way, some of the students who accept this voucher are already
in the private schools, so they already could obviously afford the
program. They are already attending the voucher schools, and they have
now gotten vouchers. If you have some free Federal money, let me have
some.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Would they be expected to do better, with
their supportive families, than the average?
Ms. NORTON. In reclaiming my time, I think they would be because they
have families behind them, and they are being compared with students
who often do not.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The gentlewoman pointed out that, with the
randomized studies, there was no difference in the public schools and
the voucher programs. Those studies are the conclusion of vigorous
research that there was no difference; is that right?
Ms. NORTON. In reclaiming my time, there was no difference, and yet
improving academic performance was a stated reason for the voucher
program.
I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in opposing the
reauthorization of the D.C. voucher program.
Public schools are the foundation of the American education system.
They represent a duty we have to provide every student in every
community with an education that helps them realize their full
potential. Vouchers prevent us from fulfilling that duty by redirecting
taxpayer money away from our public schools, which are already
underfunded, and into private institutions that do not open their doors
to every child.
As with previous versions of the SOAR Act, this bill does nothing to
ensure that students with disabilities have access to private schools.
It also discriminates against low-income families. In 64 percent of the
participating D.C. schools, the tuition costs more than the voucher can
cover, which, effectively, excludes families who cannot afford to pay
the difference. Even students who can afford to attend private school
can be excluded based on their prior academic achievement, language
ability, or other discriminatory factors. I had hoped we could address
these concerns through the amendment process, but the majority has not
allowed amendments to the bill.
You would expect private schools that can choose their own students
to have exceptional records of student performance, but you would be
wrong. Since 2007, there have been four congressionally mandated
reports on the D.C. voucher program's impact on student achievement.
Not one of those reports found a significant improvement in reading or
math scores among participants.
Mr. Speaker, with the Every Student Succeeds Act, we are entering a
new era in education policy that holds real promise for students and
educators across the country. We should be focusing our attention and
resources on improving institutions that serve all students.
I call on my colleagues to remember the obligation we have to every
child and reject H.R. 4901.
{time} 1000
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the Civil War, Lincoln
addressed the Ohio regiment and he said that the beauty of a free
government is that it gives every individual an open field and fair
chance for their intelligence, enterprise, and industry to flourish.
That was something that he could speak of firsthand because he had
grown up in the backwater. When you start talking about places like
Illinois and Kentucky, that was so far removed from the corridors of
power at that time and then he ends up being the President of the
United States, that would have been unheard of in a country in Europe.
I think right now, when you look at our country, you have people who
are born and you are supposed to be able to make the most of your God-
given abilities, no matter your circumstances. Some people are born
into privileged circumstances, and some people aren't. But if they have
the desire to succeed, they need to be able to do that in America.
Yet, what we find now is there are so many kids who grow up in
communities that have really failing school systems, and I think the
number one thing to be able to better yourself in our modern society is
with education.
Now, of course, the Federal Government doesn't have jurisdiction over
K-12 education for the States, and I think that that is proper. I
think, at times, the Federal Government has needled into that, and I
think it has been counterproductive.
We do have jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. You have some
families who are really in dire straits. There is a big D.C.
bureaucracy that is not performing up to expectations. So this program
is a lifeline to those families.
The average income is $22,000 a year, which is not a lot in any
community, but in Washington that is very, very little. It gives them a
lifeline to be able to have an alternative school and maybe be able to
make the most of their God-given ability.
Look, if the public school bureaucracy is doing well, then they can
choose that. But if it is not and it is not working for them, then this
gives them another option.
This is something that--having done the hearing at the school like we
did on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, these are kids
who are thrilled to be in these schools. I am just very happy to
support this effort. I appreciate the chairman's work on this. We need
to give every child the chance to succeed.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I proudly support the reauthorization of
the SOAR Act because the SOAR Act provides the choice that parents in
the District deserve. I supported H.R. 10 and I now support H.R. 4901,
which made important improvements to H.R. 10.
This legislation we are considering today continues to empower low-
income families in D.C. to take advantage of opportunities they may not
otherwise be able to do. That is because H.R. 4901 is a bill that
focuses on people, public schools, charter schools, Opportunity
Scholarship Program, people with choices in each of those areas.
The SOAR Act is about improving the lives of students and families in
the District in a profoundly personal way. Isn't that what true
education is all about: personal achievement, improvement, and
opportunity?
Take the story of Carlos Battle, as written about in the National
Journal and a recent book on educational choice. Carlos received a
scholarship through the OSP and attended Assumption Catholic School and
then Georgetown Day School for high school.
As a result of this quality education, by choice, Carlos was able to
attend Northeastern University in Boston. In fact, his mother says
Carlos ``almost surely wouldn't have gone to college'' without the
scholarship.
Carlos now talks about how many of his friends from his time in
public school are still in the neighborhood and not doing well for
themselves, and he said some even are in jail.
[[Page H2123]]
As he puts it: Everyone who was in my sixth grade class had the
potential to achieve just as much as I did . . . that's just the
unfortunate truth.
The OSP allowed Carlos to take advantage of his potential, and he
kept on achieving all the way to Northeastern.
While in Boston, Carlos has spent time working at a nonprofit,
helping give back to Boston public school students by helping them
prepare for responsibilities of college where he has been able to lead
workshops for public school students on college preparedness.
He is currently preparing to pursue a Ph.D. in a career as a child
psychologist, and that would be an appropriate time for an applause
line.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 12
minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as I begin my remarks, I know that the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia would understand my sense of
pride in acknowledging that, in my district, the Victory Early College
High School, which is in the Acres Homes neighborhood and a part of the
Aldine Independent School District, a public school, will be
celebrating the National Blue Ribbon award ceremony this morning. I
offer them congratulations and express my disappointment for not being
there.
Obviously, they have been recognized as one of two schools in Houston
nationally to earn the distinction of a National Blue Ribbon School at
an awards ceremony in Washington, D.C., for closing the achievement
gap. May I remind my colleagues that that is a public school system.
So I rise in opposition and join my colleague from the District of
Columbia to oppose H.R. 4901, which would reauthorize the District of
Columbia private school voucher program and the Opportunity Scholarship
Program for 5 years.
The OSP program came about in 2004. In 2011, Congress reauthorized
the OSP through fiscal year 2016. Under the SOAR Act, D.C. households
with incomes that do not exceed 185 percent of the poverty line may
receive an annual maximum voucher payment per student of $8,000 for
grades K-8 and $12,000 for grades 9-12.
We all know that private schools are much more expensive than that.
So, in essence, this creates a small class that pays money to schools
that have not been assessed as to whether or not they are quality
schools. Private schools can cost as much as $50,000. Are we giving
them $50,000 while we are dumbing down the public school system? What
is so disturbing is: Where is the data?
This bill, in particular, makes a significant change. The bill
prohibits a control study group in making evaluations of the OSP and
requires a less rigorous quasi-experimental research design than under
the SOAR Act. Since 2004, almost $200 million has been spent on D.C.
voucher schools. Can you imagine what we would be able to do if that
money was invested?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what that could do?
I hear that 50 percent of D.C. children are in charter schools, but
50 percent of children in D.C. are using The Choice Program. What are
we doing in America? By using this as a scapegoat, we are suggesting
that we are not invested in public schools.
Finally, the D.C. Mayor and City Council members, as I understand,
were only advocating that: If you don't fund the voucher program, don't
leave us out for the public and charter school program. There is a
vigorous Choice Program in D.C.
This bill undermines the public school system for all of us, and we
should oppose the bill.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4901, the Scholarship for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
As many will remember, the House passed a similar bill, H.R. 10, last
year with 240 votes.
H.R. 4901 makes three specific changes to H.R. 10 to ensure the D.C.
scholarship program continues to run efficiently and effectively for
the foreseeable future.
First, this bill creates additional reporting requirements for the
administrator of the scholarship program to ensure that the program is
operating effectively.
Second, it requires that any District of Columbia school that
participates in this scholarship program must be accredited.
Finally, the Department of Education has been withholding funds from
the scholarship program and excluding qualified students from
participating.
H.R. 4901 ensures that the Department of Education cannot withhold
funds from the scholarship program and that they cannot exclude
students that are qualified to participate.
With these changes, this D.C. school scholarship program can continue
to run efficiently and allow low-income families to better their
educational experience and opportunities.
I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 4901.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the SOAR Act. I want
to talk for a moment about the elephant in the room, and that is the
way in which it has become something of a tug of war between those who
believe in choice in education and those who don't.
I think that, on the one hand, you have, for instance, taxpayer
advocates who say: Wait a minute. If we are spending about $30,000 per
student and getting the results that we are out of the system,
something ought to change.
There are other people who are advocates for the children of D.C.,
people like the former Mayor of this city, Anthony Williams, who said:
Wait a minute. The scholarship program worked and it made a difference
in people's lives.
There are people who are advocates for the marketplace who say: Wait
a minute. There has been a revolutionary degree of change in technology
and in output and in productivity as a result of marketplace forces,
and maybe those marketplace forces ought to be at work in education as
well.
I think, most of all, there are folks who acknowledge the fact that
God makes every child different and that one size never fits all with
the plethora of different personalities in children that are out there.
On the other hand, you have folks who say: Wait a minute. Let's do it
the way we have always done it. We had schools set up this way in the
1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s, and in the 2000s. Let's do it the
way we did it.
But, in that process, kids may be locked into schools that aren't
working for them and for their families. They may be literally
imprisoned in schools that aren't working.
So I think that what stands out about the SOAR Act is that it
represents a set of keys so that kids would have additional choices. If
we really believe that education is the cornerstone to opportunity in
the 21st century, why not give kids as many keys as possible?
It could be a key to a charter school, a traditional public school,
or a private school. It is a key of their choice because kids are
indeed so different. That is what this bill acknowledges.
I commend the gentleman from Utah for what he has done on this front.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 9
minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding
[[Page H2124]]
and for his work on this important legislation.
As a proud member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee,
I rise today in support of H.R. 4901, the Scholarship for Opportunity
and Results Reauthorization Act, also known as the SOAR Act.
This legislation would reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program, which provides scholarships to low-income students so they may
attend a D.C. private school of their parents' choice.
School choice is an effective tool that has proven to be successful
in Washington, D.C. These scholarships have resulted in a 90 percent
graduation rate, which is simply outstanding. I congratulate them on
this.
Both of my parents were educators who instilled in me the importance
of a good education, and I believe we should extend this opportunity to
those who might not otherwise have it.
God created every child to be unique. As such, this legislation gives
opportunities to students to receive an education chosen by their
parents, those who know their child's needs best.
I encourage my colleagues to stand up in support of school choice and
the SOAR Act to empower both parents and the students.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
{time} 1015
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for
yielding and for her advocacy for every child in the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, last year we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, a
good bill, but instead of figuring out how to fund this bipartisan bill
through our budget and appropriations process, which apparently has
broken down, we are here in a legislative deja vu redebating a nearly
identical bad bill we passed just months ago that will take money away
from our public schools.
I am well aware of these attempts to divert money away from public
schools and the failures of taxpayer-funded private schools. In the
last 10 years, Wisconsin taxpayers have wasted $139 million of taxpayer
dollars on private schools that were later terminated from the voucher
program due to their lack of appropriate standards and accountability.
Further, in Wisconsin, 79 percent of the students who received a
taxpayer-subsidized voucher in 2013 were already attending private
schools. The SOAR Act would allow kids already in private schools to
receive this funding. That means taxpayer dollars are being used not to
advocate education, but instead as a form of tax policy. What is worse
is that the taxpayer-funded voucher schools both in my State and here
in D.C. are not providing equitable resources to special needs students
with disabilities.
At the end of the day, this is also about results. Multiple
Department of Education studies have concluded that the taxpayer-funded
D.C. voucher program has failed to improve educational outcomes for
participating students, and two U.S. Government Accountability Office
reports have also identified its repeated management and accountability
failures. Public funds should be used for public education which serves
all students. It is that simple. I encourage everyone to oppose this
bill.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Ms. NORTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to be funded, and you can't blame the
District of Columbia for wanting the public school and charter school
funding that is in the bill. This bill is going to be funded. It was a
Boehner bill, now it is essentially a Ryan bill, and I do want that
understood.
I include in the Record the Council's letter from last year which
opposed funding.
Council of the District
of Columbia,
Washington, DC, October 8, 2015.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairperson, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, U.S.
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Chairperson Chaffetz: We write as locally elected officials
to express our opposition to renewed efforts to expand a
federally funded school voucher program in the District of
Columbia. We appreciate your interest in providing support to
public education in the District. We strongly believe,
however, that federal funds should be invested in the
existing public education system--both public schools and
public charter schools--rather than being diverted to private
schools.
We support the decision by Congress and the President
several years ago to phase out the voucher program. Multiple
U.S. Department of Education reports indicate that the
program has not lived up to the promises made by proponents.
These studies along with two troubling Government
Accountability Office reports have also revealed that many of
the students participating in the voucher program attend
private schools with fewer resources and lower standards than
our public schools. The evidence is clear that the use of
vouchers has had no statistically significant impact on
overall student achievement in math or reading, or for
students from schools in need of improvement.
We have serious concerns about using government funds to
send our students to private schools that do not have to
adhere to the same standards and accountability as do public
and public charter schools. For example, private religious
schools, which 80% of students with vouchers attend, operate
outside the non-discrimination provisions of the D.C. Human
Rights Act. Moreover, the voucher proposal is inequitable: if
fully funded, the authorization would provide many more
dollars per student for vouchers than is allocated per
student in public schools and public charter schools.
Although we believe that students who are already receiving
a voucher should have the opportunity to maintain and use
that voucher through graduation from high school, we do not
support expansion of the program to new students. The
District devotes considerable funds to public education, and
our local policies promote choice for parents. Indeed, over
the past decade the quality of public education in D.C. has
increased, as a result of reforms and targeted investment.
Families can choose from an array of educational institutions
based on publicly--available performance metrics, both within
the D.C. Public Schools system and among the myriad public
charter schools. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has
called the progress of D.C. Public Schools ``remarkable'',
while the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has
ranked the District's charter sector as the best in the
country.
Despite such ample evidence that the Congressionally
imposed voucher program is ineffective, while D.C. public
schools improve every year, some members of Congress continue
to see our city as their personal petri dish. It is insulting
to our constituents, who vote for us but not for any voting
member of Congress, that some of your colleagues push their
personal agendas on D.C. in a way they could never do in
their home states. Attacking D.C. home rule, including any
expansion of the voucher program, is irresponsible governing
on the part of Congress.
We call on you to respect the wishes of the District's
elected officials on the quintessentially local matter of
education as you consider this issue.
Sincerely,
David Grosso,
D.C. Council, At-Large, Chairperson, Committee on
Education.
Charles Allen,
D.C. Council, Ward 6, Member, Committee on Education.
LaRuby May,
D.C. Council, Ward 8.
Elissa Silverman,
D.C. Council, At-Large.
Anita Bonds,
D.C. Council, At-Large, Member, Committee on Education.
Yvette Alexander,
D.C. Council, Ward 7, Member, Committee on Education.
Brianne Nadeau,
D.C. Council, Ward 1.
Jack Evans,
D.C. Council, Ward 2.
Ms. NORTON. This year, of course, recognizing that they might lose
$40 million, there was another bill, and a bare majority said: Give us
the money.
But I want you to understand what the letter from the District of
Columbia said.
``A reauthorization of the SOAR Act would help safeguard $150 million
in Federal funds for the D.C. Public Schools and public charter schools
over 5 years.''
And they go on to say: ``SOAR Act funding for D.C. Public Schools has
been used to support initiatives that reward and increase retention of
high performing teachers and principals. The funds also help attract
more high quality teachers and principals to D.C. Public Schools and
improve the efficiency with which schools are run.
``After years of decline, D.C. public school enrollment is rising for
the first time in decades. Schools that previously struggled to fill
their pre-kindergarten seats have waiting lists and
[[Page H2125]]
other schools are attracting families back into the system at grade
levels that have historically lost students.''
Clearly, we have a school system--and I cannot help but identify with
them--that does not want to lose $40 million for D.C. public schools
and D.C. charter schools. I don't ask anybody to change their vote.
This program is going to be funded.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In conclusion, let me read the first sentence of the first paragraph
from the D.C. Mayor, as well as the majority of the Council. ``As Mayor
and members of the Council of the District of Columbia, we support the
three-sector Federal funding approach for D.C.'s K-12 education system
that is authorized in the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results, the
SOAR Act.''
It is clear this is producing results. I find it a little bit
troubling when the opposition to the SOAR Act people stand up and say:
Well, it is not producing results.
I will reiterate again that the average graduation rate at the D.C.
public schools is 64 percent. The graduation rate for somebody who
obtains the scholarship is 90 percent, and 92 percent of those people
who get that scholarship go on to college. Those are laudable goals in
any, any scenario.
And while this is done, this education is literally two-thirds of the
cost, and it goes to people who really do deserve and need it, because
the average annual income for somebody who is a recipient of this
scholarship is $22,000. A $22,000 income in the District of Columbia
for someone with kids is difficult, at best.
I want to thank, again, Speaker Boehner for his passion on school
choice and particularly the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship. I also want
to thank our Senate colleague, Senator Tim Scott. Senator Scott joined
us in a field hearing that we had in the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. He is a true believer and is passionate about school
choice and the need to give everybody the best possible opportunities
that we can.
So I think we have had a good debate. We had a good markup and
discussion within the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I
hope that we pass this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 4901, the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Reauthorization Act.
Members of Congress, believe that together--the key to the future of
our great nation is the quality of the education we provide our
children.
We all know the story of some District of Columbia public schools:
Low graduation rates, high dropout rates, low math and reading scores.
And, we can all agree that the children in the District deserve a first
class education.
A decade ago, I had the honor to Chair the District of Columbia
Appropriations Subcommittee. In that capacity, we worked to create a
program to give a `hand-up' to children in Washington, DC. We built a
`three-sector' approach: public schools, charter schools, and the
latter, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides parents
with funds to send their children to private or parochial schools.
The bill before us today will reauthorize the three-sector approach
to school reform in the District of Columbia--including the DC
Opportunity Scholarship Program--through FY 2021.
The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is a huge success. Last year
alone 3,246 students submitted applications to participate in these
scholarships and the program accepted 1,244 students.
88 percent of high school graduates in 2015, who were Opportunity
Scholarship recipients, enrolled at a 2- or 4-year college.
Congress should listen to the voices of parents and students and
continue to work to ensure that this not only survives, but grows.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this critical
legislation.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Reid,
Speaker Ryan, and Minority Leader Pelosi: As Mayor and
members of the Council of the District of Columbia, we
support the three-sector federal funding approach for DC's K-
12 education system that is authorized in the Scholarships
for Opportunities and Results (SOAR) ACT. Our support for the
SOAR Act is rooted in the importance we place on the much-
needed federal funding for DC Public Schools (DCPS) and
public charter schools which totaled $30 million in FY2016.
This funding is provided via our DC federal payments and does
not take away from our state formula funding for education;
rather, it adds to it. A reauthorization of the SOAR Act
would help safeguard $150 million in federal funds for DCPS
and public charter schools over five years. These funds are
critical to the gains that the District's public education
system has seen in recent years.
In addition, we are very concerned about a bill that was
recently introduced in Congress, the Educational Freedom
Accounts Act (H.R. 4426/S. 2455), which would require the
District of Columbia to re-direct local funds from DCPS and
the public charter schools toward Educational Savings
Accounts for DC students who want to attend private schools.
This bill would be harmful to the District's progress on
education and we strongly oppose it. SOAR Act reauthorization
is far a better alternative and works for our families and
school system.
SOAR Act funding for DCPS has been used to support
initiatives that reward and increase retention of performing
teachers and principals. The funds also help attract more
high quality teachers and principals to DCPS and to improve
the efficiency with which schools are run. After years of
decline, DCPS enrollment is rising for the first time in
decades. Schools that previously struggled to fill their
prekindergarten seats have waiting lists and other schools
are attracting families back into the system at grade levels
that have historically lost students.
Public charter schools in the District represent 44 percent
of the public school population of more than 85,000 students
with 62 public charter schools on 115 campuses. Since FY2004,
federal funds authorized in the SOAR Act have supported the
acquisition, renovation, modernization, and expansion of
charter school facilities in the District. These funds have
also been used to improve academic achievement, teacher and
leader quality and recruitment, instructional support, and
graduation pathways.
The SOAR Act provides equal amounts of federal funding for
the DCPS, public charter schools and the OSP. We understand
that these funding streams are inextricably linked. We urge
you to ensure that the SOAR Reauthorization Act (S. 2171/H.R.
10) becomes law before the end of this Congress so that this
critical funding for K-12 education in the District of
Columbia is not put in jeopardy.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser, Mayor; LaRuby May, Councilmember; Brandon
T. Todd, Councilmember; Mary Cheh, Councilmember; Phil
Mendelson, Chairman; Vincent Orange, Councilmember;
Anita Bonds, Councilmember; Yvette M. Alexander,
Councilmember; Kenyon R. McDuffie, Councilmember.
____
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2016]
For D.C., Preauthorizing School Choice Is the Right Choice
(By Editorial Board)
IN THEIR zeal to kill off the federally funded scholarship
program for poor D.C. students, opponents have peddled the
fiction that Congress foisted the program on an unwilling
city. In fact, the program was backed enthusiastically by
then-Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) and a key D.C. Council
member, and parent demand for scholarships far outstrips
supply. So let's hope that a letter from Mayor Muriel E.
Bowser (D) and a majority of the council urging continued
funding for the program finally puts the myth to rest and
helps allow more students to benefit from the program.
The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides
needy students with vouchers to attend private schools of
their choice, is up for reauthorization. As has happened
before with all-too-depressing frequency since the
scholarships were established in 2004, the program is under
attack from unions and other opponents. If Congress fails to
act, the city will also lose out on millions of dollars that
go to its traditional and charter public schools as part of
the three-sector federal funding deal.
The very real danger of the District losing $150 million in
federal funds over five years apparently finally sunk in with
members of the council. Three members who previously had
urged that the program be killed joined Ms. Bowser and five
other members, including council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D),
in a March 7 letter to congressional leaders in support of
the Scholarships for Opportunities and Results (SOAR) Act.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) in a statement called the
support of the mayor and council ``an important boost'' in
the effort to get reauthorization to the president's desk
We hope so. Mr. Ryan is right that ``when we give more
families a choice, more students succeed.'' Uncertainty about
the future of the program is the alleged reason the Education
Department has, for several years, put a hold on funds that
would allow additional students into the program. Officials
with Serving Our Children, the nonprofit that took over
administration of the scholarships in October, told us there
are more than 1,900 applicants, with more expected, for just
146 new spots next year. If Congress doesn't reauthorize the
program, funding could dry
[[Page H2126]]
up, with no new students accepted after the 2016-2017 school
year. The scholarships provide a lifeline to low-income and
underserved families, giving them the school choice that more
affluent families take as a given. And because the program
results in more federal money for D.C. public education and
not less--another myth advanced by opponents--it's time for
Congress to act.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4901,
as I did when the House debated a nearly identical measure last
October.
We have been told that the purpose of this bill is to help all DC
children get a better education.
I strongly support that objective, but this bill does not.
Let me be crystal clear: public funds should support public
education.
But this bill proposes to spend 100 million dollars over five years
to fund vouchers to send students in the District of Columbia to
private schools.
Coming from the city of Baltimore, I understand the complexities of
turning around struggling inner city schools.
Almost ten years ago, I became deeply involved in improving one of my
own neighborhood schools, the Maritime Industries Academy.
It takes vision, commitment, accountability and, yes, resources to
begin the process of turning troubled schools around.
However, it is extremely difficult to turn around public schools if
we divert public resources to private schools.
By dividing funding among DC Public Schools, DC Charter Schools, and
private school vouchers, this bill provides one-third of its total
funding to voucher students, a tiny fraction of the District's
students.
The lack of equity is stunning. Our focus should be on maximizing the
impact of the federal government's limited resources to serve ALL of
the District's students.
This program was last authorized in 2011, over my strong objection
and along party lines, despite the fact that the study on the program's
impacts mandated by law found that the use of vouchers had no effect on
academic achievement, as measured by math and reading test scores.
Vouchers also had no impact on students' perceptions of school safety
and satisfaction.
We have heard all the Republican rhetoric justifying massive cuts to
education funding--all the talk about budget constraints, about
tightening our belts, and about making sacrifices.
But apparently all that goes out the window when Republicans want to
give 100 million dollars in taxpayer funds to private schools.
As a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of quality
public education, I believe our highest priority must be to use limited
taxpayer dollars to support programs that will truly meet the
educational needs of all children.
This bill does not do that. So I urge my colleagues to reject H.R.
4901.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule
and the underlying bill, H.R. 4901, the Scholarships for Opportunity
and Results Reauthorization (SOAR) Act.
H.R. 4901 would reauthorize the District of Columbia's private school
voucher program, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), for five
years through 2021.
Simply put, this bill diverts much needed resources from the D.C.
public school system into this unsuccessful and counterproductive
voucher program.
We know that this voucher program has failed to improve academic
achievement, threatens vital civil rights for students, undermines
constitutional protections, and is poorly managed.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another Republican attack on the
District of Columbia's right to self-governance.
Even worse, the Districts' government did not request this
reauthorization--nor did its representative, Congresswoman Eleanor
Holmes Norton.
If the District wants to establish a voucher program, it has the
authority to do so.
But it hasn't for many of the reasons I listed above.
Mr. Speaker, we should work to fully fund our public schools and
ensure equal access to education for all students--not funnel
additional funds into this ineffective and poorly managed program.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. TED LIEU of California. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ted Lieu of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
4901 to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
Insert after section 7 the following new section:
SEC. 8. NONDISCRIMINATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE
ENTITY AND PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS.
Section 3008(a) (sec. 38-1853.08(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended by inserting ``actual or perceived sexual orientation
or gender identity,'' after ``national origin,''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment
to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee.
If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as
amended.
My amendment would simply change the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program so that it could not discriminate against students based on
sexual orientation or gender identity.
Sadly, we know that LGBT kids are often victims of bullying and hate.
According to a survey by the Human Rights Campaign, LGBT youth were
twice as likely as their non-LGBT peers to report being verbally
harassed and excluded.
Moreover, misguided anti-LGBT laws, such as those passed in North
Carolina and Mississippi, continue to send a message that being LGBT is
not okay, and that is wrong. As one of my Republican colleagues earlier
today on the floor stated, God makes every child different. It is wrong
to systematically discriminate against students because they are LGBT.
We need to send our kids a message that saying whom they love and the
gender they identify with does not dictate their self-worth, and it
certainly should not dictate whether or not they can get a voucher. I
move that we begin to do this right now by passing my amendment to
prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Being LGBTQ is not a medical condition that needs to be cured. It is
instead a beautiful reflection of what it means to be a human being.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, we went through regular order in our
committee. We had field hearings. We had a markup. The gentleman was
free to offer an amendment in committee. That did not happen.
This is a school choice bill. This is a bill that gives parents the
opportunity to make choices about where their students can attend, and
this scholarship program has been a very valuable tool. I am opposed to
the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 167,
nays 228, not voting 38, as follows:
[[Page H2127]]
[Roll No. 178]
YEAS--167
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--38
Brady (PA)
Butterfield
Calvert
Carson (IN)
Collins (NY)
Costa
Crawford
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Duckworth
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hanna
Himes
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Labrador
MacArthur
Miller (MI)
Newhouse
Payne
Reed
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (TX)
Stutzman
Takai
Torres
Tsongas
Westmoreland
Whitfield
{time} 1044
Messrs. ROKITA, DUFFY, and TROTT changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. CAPUANO, JEFFRIES, Ms. MOORE, and Mr. HOYER changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 181, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 179]
AYES--224
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
[[Page H2128]]
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--28
Calvert
Carson (IN)
Collins (NY)
Crawford
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Duckworth
Engel
Fattah
Fincher
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hanna
Issa
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Labrador
MacArthur
Newhouse
Payne
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (TX)
Stutzman
Takai
Torres
Tsongas
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1051
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 2016, I was unable to
vote on H.R. 4901, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results
Reauthorization Act. I would have voted in support of final passage of
H.R. 4901, rollcall No. 179, had I been present.
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 179 on H.R. 4901, I am not
recorded because I was absent for personal reasons. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I missed a vote on H.R. 4901 in order to
attend a family wedding. Had I been present for this vote, I would have
voted ``no'' on rollcall 179 (H.R. 4901).
personal explanation
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 2016, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On
rollcall No. 178, Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 4901, I would have
voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 179, Scholarships for Opportunity and
Results Reauthorization Act, H.R. 4901, I would have voted ``no.''
personal explanation
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on April 29, 2016, due to a
medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted: On The
Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 4901, I would have voted ``yea.'' On
Passage of H.R. 4901, I would have voted ``nay.''
personal explanation
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House
chamber for votes on Friday, April 29, 2016. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 178 and ``nay'' on rollcall
vote 179.
personal explanation
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 2016, I was
unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 178 and 179. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 178 and ``no'' on
rollcall 179.
____________________