[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2060-H2082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS ACT
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 186, I call up
the bill (H.R. 471) to reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship
program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). Pursuant to
House Resolution 186, the amendment recommended by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill is adopted. The
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 471
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Scholarships for Opportunity
and Results Act'' or the ``SOAR Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Parents are best equipped to make decisions for their
children, including the educational setting that will best
serve the interests and educational needs of their child.
(2) For many parents in the District of Columbia, public
school choice provided under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as well as under other public school
choice programs, is inadequate. More educational options are
needed to ensure all families in the District of Columbia
have access to a quality education. In particular, funds are
needed to provide low-income parents with enhanced public
opportunities and private educational environments,
regardless of whether such environments are secular or
nonsecular.
(3) While the per student cost for students in the public
schools of the District of Columbia is one of the highest in
the United States, test scores for such students continue to
be among the lowest in the Nation. The National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), an annual report released by the
National Center for Education Statistics, reported in its
2009 study that students in the District of Columbia were
being outperformed by every State in the Nation. On the 2009
NAEP, 56 percent of fourth grade students scored ``below
basic'' in reading, and 44 percent scored ``below basic'' in
mathematics. Among eighth grade students, 49 percent scored
``below basic'' in reading and 60 percent scored ``below
basic'' in mathematics. On the 2009 NAEP reading assessment,
only 17 percent of the District of Columbia fourth grade
students could read proficiently, while only 13 percent of
the eighth grade students scored at the proficient or
advanced level.
(4) In 2003, Congress passed the DC School Choice Incentive
Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-199; 118 Stat. 126), to provide
opportunity scholarships to parents of students in the
District of Columbia to enable them to pursue a high-quality
education at a public or private elementary or secondary
school of their choice. The DC Opportunity Scholarship
Program (DC OSP) under such Act was part of a comprehensive
3-part funding arrangement that also included additional
funds for the District of Columbia public schools, and
additional funds for public charter schools of the District
of Columbia. The intent of the approach was to ensure that
progress would continue to be made to improve public schools
and public charter schools, and that funding for the
opportunity scholarship program would not lead to a reduction
in funding for the District of Columbia public and charter
schools. Resources would be available for a variety of
educational options that would give families in the District
of Columbia a range of choices with regard to the education
of their children.
(5) The DC OSP was established in accordance with the
Supreme Court decision, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S.
639 (2002), which found that a program enacted for the valid
secular purpose of providing educational assistance to low-
income children in a demonstrably failing public school
system is constitutional if it is neutral with respect to
religion and provides assistance to a broad class of citizens
who direct government aid to religious and secular schools
solely as a result of their genuine and independent private
choices.
(6) Since the inception of the DC OSP, it has consistently
been oversubscribed. Parents express strong support for the
opportunity scholarship program. Rigorous studies of the
program by the Institute of Education Sciences have shown
significant improvements in parental satisfaction and in
reading scores that are more dramatic when only those
students consistently using the scholarships are considered.
The program also was found to result in significantly higher
graduation rates for DC OSP students.
(7) The DC OSP is a program that offers families in need,
in the District of Columbia, important alternatives while
public schools are improved. This program should be
reauthorized as 1 of a 3-part comprehensive funding strategy
for the District of Columbia school system that provides new
and equal funding for public schools, public charter schools,
and opportunity scholarships for students to attend private
schools.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to provide low-income parents
residing in the District of Columbia, particularly parents of
students who attend elementary schools or secondary schools
identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316), with
expanded opportunities for enrolling their children in other
schools in the District of Columbia, at least until the
public schools in the District of Columbia have adequately
addressed shortfalls in health, safety, and security, and the
students in the District of Columbia public schools are
testing in mathematics and reading at or above the national
average.
SEC. 4. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
(a) Opportunity Scholarships.--
(1) In general.--From funds appropriated under section
14(a)(1), the Secretary shall award grants on a competitive
basis to eligible entities with approved applications under
section 5 to carry out a program to provide eligible students
with expanded school choice opportunities. The Secretary may
award a single grant or multiple grants, depending on the
quality of applications submitted and the priorities of this
Act.
(2) Duration of grants.--The Secretary may make grants
under this subsection for a period of not more than 5 years.
(b) DC Public Schools and Charter Schools.--From funds
appropriated under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 14(a),
the Secretary shall provide funds to the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, if the Mayor agrees to the requirements
described in section 11(a), for--
(1) the District of Columbia public schools to improve
public education in the District of Columbia; and
(2) the District of Columbia public charter schools to
improve and expand quality public charter schools in the
District of Columbia.
SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--In order to receive a grant under section
4(a), an eligible entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may require.
(b) Contents.--The Secretary may not approve the request of
an eligible entity for a grant under section 4(a) unless the
entity's application includes--
(1) a detailed description of--
(A) how the entity will address the priorities described in
section 6;
(B) how the entity will ensure that if more eligible
students seek admission in the program of the entity than the
program can accommodate, eligible students are selected for
admission through a random selection process which gives
weight to the priorities described in section 6;
(C) how the entity will ensure that if more participating
eligible students seek admission to a participating school
than the school can accommodate, participating eligible
students are selected for admission through a random
selection process;
(D) how the entity will notify parents of eligible students
of the expanded choice opportunities in order to allow the
parents to make informed decisions;
(E) the activities that the entity will carry out to
provide parents of eligible students with expanded choice
opportunities through the awarding of scholarships under
section 7(a);
(F) how the entity will determine the amount that will be
provided to parents under section 7(a)(2) for the payment of
tuition, fees, and transportation expenses, if any;
(G) how the entity will seek out private elementary schools
and secondary schools in the District of Columbia to
participate in the program;
(H) how the entity will ensure that each participating
school will meet the reporting and other program requirements
under this Act;
(I) how the entity will ensure that participating schools
submit to site visits by the entity as determined to be
necessary by the entity, except that a participating school
may not be required to submit to more than 1 site visit per
school year;
(J) how the entity will ensure that participating schools
are financially responsible and will use the funds received
under section 7 effectively;
(K) how the entity will address the renewal of scholarships
to participating eligible students, including continued
eligibility; and
(L) how the entity will ensure that a majority of its
voting board members or governing organization are residents
of the District of Columbia; and
(2) an assurance that the entity will comply with all
requests regarding any evaluation carried out under section
9(a).
SEC. 6. PRIORITIES.
In awarding grants under section 4(a), the Secretary shall
give priority to applications from eligible entities that
will most effectively--
(1) in awarding scholarships under section 7(a), give
priority to--
(A) eligible students who, in the school year preceding the
school year for which the eligible students are seeking a
scholarship, attended an elementary school or secondary
school identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316);
(B) students who have been awarded a scholarship in a
preceding year under this Act or the DC School Choice
Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 38-
[[Page H2061]]
1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code), as such Act was in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act, but who have not used the scholarship, including
eligible students who were provided notification of selection
for a scholarship for school year 2009-2010, which was later
rescinded in accordance with direction from the Secretary of
Education; and
(C) students whose household includes a sibling or other
child who is already participating in the program of the
eligible entity under this Act, regardless of whether such
students have, in the past, been assigned as members of a
control study group for the purposes of an evaluation under
section 9(a);
(2) target resources to students and families that lack the
financial resources to take advantage of available
educational options; and
(3) provide students and families with the widest range of
educational options.
SEC. 7. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Opportunity Scholarships.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an
eligible entity receiving a grant under section 4(a) shall
use the grant funds to provide eligible students with
scholarships to pay the tuition, fees, and transportation
expenses, if any, to enable the eligible students to attend
the District of Columbia private elementary school or
secondary school of their choice beginning in school year
2011-2012. Each such eligible entity shall ensure that the
amount of any tuition or fees charged by a school
participating in such entity's program under this Act to an
eligible student participating in the program does not exceed
the amount of tuition or fees that the school charges to
students who do not participate in the program.
(2) Payments to parents.--An eligible entity receiving a
grant under section 4(a) shall make scholarship payments
under the entity's program under this Act to the parent of
the eligible student participating in the program, in a
manner which ensures that such payments will be used for the
payment of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses (if
any), in accordance with this Act.
(3) Amount of assistance.--
(A) Varying amounts permitted.--Subject to the other
requirements of this section, an eligible entity receiving a
grant under section 4(a) may award scholarships in larger
amounts to those eligible students with the greatest need.
(B) Annual limit on amount.--
(i) Limit for school year 2011-2012.--The amount of
assistance provided to any eligible student by an eligible
entity under the entity's program under this Act for school
year 2011-2012 may not exceed--
(I) $8,000 for attendance in kindergarten through grade 8;
and
(II) $12,000 for attendance in grades 9 through 12.
(ii) Cumulative inflation adjustment.--Beginning the school
year following the school year of the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall adjust the maximum amounts
of assistance described in clause (i) for inflation, as
measured by the percentage increase, if any, from the
preceding fiscal year in the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the Department of Labor.
(4) Participating school requirements.--None of the funds
provided under this Act for opportunity scholarships may be
used by an eligible student to enroll in a participating
private school unless the participating school--
(A) has and maintains a valid certificate of occupancy
issued by the District of Columbia;
(B) makes readily available to all prospective students
information on its school accreditation;
(C) in the case of a school that has been operating for 5
years or less, submits to the eligible entity administering
the program proof of adequate financial resources reflecting
the financial sustainability of the school and the school's
ability to be in operation through the school year;
(D) agrees to submit to site visits as determined to be
necessary by the eligible entity pursuant to section
5(b)(1)(I);
(E) has financial systems, controls, policies, and
procedures to ensure that funds are used according to this
Act; and
(F) ensures that each teacher of core subject matter in the
school has a baccalaureate degree or equivalent degree,
whether such degree was awarded in or outside of the United
States.
(b) Administrative Expenses.--An eligible entity receiving
a grant under section 4(a) may use not more than 3 percent of
the amount provided under the grant each year for the
administrative expenses of carrying out its program under
this Act during the year, including--
(1) determining the eligibility of students to participate;
(2) selecting eligible students to receive scholarships;
(3) determining the amount of scholarships and issuing the
scholarships to eligible students;
(4) compiling and maintaining financial and programmatic
records; and
(5) conducting site visits as described in section
5(b)(1)(I).
(c) Parental Assistance.--An eligible entity receiving a
grant under section 4(a) may use not more than 2 percent of
the amount provided under the grant each year for the
expenses of educating parents about the entity's program
under this Act, and assisting parents through the application
process, under this Act, including--
(1) providing information about the program and the
participating schools to parents of eligible students;
(2) providing funds to assist parents of students in
meeting expenses that might otherwise preclude the
participation of eligible students in the program; and
(3) streamlining the application process for parents.
(d) Student Academic Assistance.--An eligible entity
receiving a grant under section 4(a) may use not more than 1
percent of the amount provided under the grant each year for
expenses to provide tutoring services to participating
eligible students that need additional academic assistance.
If there are insufficient funds to provide tutoring services
to all such students in a year, the eligible entity shall
give priority in such year to students who previously
attended an elementary school or secondary school that was
identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316).
SEC. 8. NONDISCRIMINATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR
PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--An eligible entity or a school
participating in any program under this Act shall not
discriminate against program participants or applicants on
the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.
(b) Applicability and Single Sex Schools, Classes, or
Activities.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the prohibition of sex discrimination in subsection (a)
shall not apply to a participating school that is operated
by, supervised by, controlled by, or connected to a religious
organization to the extent that the application of subsection
(a) is inconsistent with the religious tenets or beliefs of
the school.
(2) Single sex schools, classes, or activities.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a) or any other provision of law,
a parent may choose and a school may offer a single sex
school, class, or activity.
(3) Applicability.--For purposes of this Act, the
provisions of section 909 of the Education Amendments of 1972
(20 U.S.C. 1688) shall apply to this Act as if section 909 of
the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1688) were part
of this Act.
(c) Children With Disabilities.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to alter or modify the provisions of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400
et seq.).
(d) Religiously Affiliated Schools.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a school participating in any program under this Act
that is operated by, supervised by, controlled by, or
connected to, a religious organization may exercise its right
in matters of employment consistent with title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq.),
including the exemptions in such title.
(2) Maintenance of purpose.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, funds made available under this Act to
eligible students, which are used at a participating school
as a result of their parents' choice, shall not, consistent
with the first amendment of the Constitution, necessitate any
change in the participating school's teaching mission,
require any participating school to remove religious art,
icons, scriptures, or other symbols, or preclude any
participating school from retaining religious terms in its
name, selecting its board members on a religious basis, or
including religious references in its mission statements and
other chartering or governing documents.
(e) Rule of Construction.--A scholarship (or any other form
of support provided to parents of eligible students) under
this Act shall be considered assistance to the student and
shall not be considered assistance to the school that enrolls
the eligible student. The amount of any scholarship (or other
form of support provided to parents of an eligible student)
under this Act shall not be treated as income of the parents
for purposes of Federal tax laws or for determining
eligibility for any other Federal program.
(f) Requests for Data and Information.--Each school
participating in a program funded under this Act shall comply
with all requests for data and information regarding
evaluations conducted under section 9(a).
(g) Rules of Conduct and Other School Policies.--A
participating school, including the schools described in
subsection (d), may require eligible students to abide by any
rules of conduct and other requirements applicable to all
other students at the school.
(h) Nationally Norm-Referenced Standardized Tests.--
(1) In general.--Each participating school shall comply
with any testing requirements determined to be necessary for
evaluation under section 9(a)(2)(A)(i).
(2) Make-up session.--If a participating school does not
administer a nationally norm-referenced standardized test or
the Institute of Education Sciences does not receive data on
a student who is receiving an opportunity scholarship, then
the Secretary (through the Institute of Education Sciences of
the Department of Education) shall administer such test at
least one time during a school year for each student
receiving an opportunity scholarship.
SEC. 9. EVALUATIONS.
(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 performance of students who received
scholarships under the 5-year program under this Act;
(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 Act; and
(C) make the evaluations described in subparagraph (A) and
(B) public in accordance with subsection (c).
(2) Duties of the secretary.--The Secretary, through a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, shall--
[[Page H2062]]
(A) ensure that the evaluation under paragraph (1)(A)--
(i) is conducted using the strongest possible research
design for determining the effectiveness of the opportunity
scholarship program under this Act; and
(ii) addresses the issues described in paragraph (4); and
(B) disseminate information on the impact of the program--
(i) in increasing the academic growth and achievement of
participating eligible students; 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) use a grade appropriate, nationally norm-referenced
standardized test each school year to assess participating
eligible students;
(B) measure the academic achievement of all participating
eligible students; and
(C) work with the eligible entities to ensure that the
parents of each student who applies for a scholarship under
this Act (regardless of whether the student receives the
scholarship) and the parents of each student participating in
the scholarship program under this Act, agree that the
student will participate in the measurements given annually
by the Institute of Educational Sciences for the period for
which the student applied for or received the scholarship,
respectively, except that nothing in this subparagraph shall
affect a student's priority for an opportunity scholarship as
provided under section 6.
(4) Issues to be evaluated.--The issues to be evaluated
under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the following:
(A) A comparison of the academic growth and achievement of
participating eligible students in the measurements described
in paragraph (3) to the academic growth and achievement of
the eligible students in the same grades who sought to
participate in the scholarship program under this Act but
were not selected.
(B) The success of the program in expanding choice options
for parents of participating eligible students, improving
parental and student satisfaction of such parents and
students, respectively, and increasing parental involvement
of such parents in the education of their children.
(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, and college admission rates of
participating eligible students with the retention rates,
high school graduation rates, and college admission rates of
students of similar backgrounds who do not participate in
such program.
(E) A comparison of the safety of the schools attended by
participating eligible students and the schools in the
District of Columbia attended by students who do not
participate in the program, based on the perceptions of the
students and parents.
(F) Such other issues with respect to participating
eligible students 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.
(G) An analysis of the issues described in subparagraphs
(A) through (F) by applying such subparagraphs by
substituting ``the subgroup of participating eligible
students who have used each opportunity scholarship awarded
to such students under this Act to attend a participating
school'' for ``participating eligible students'' each place
such term appears.
(5) Prohibition.--Personally identifiable information
regarding the results of the measurements used for the
evaluations may not be disclosed, except to the parents of
the student to whom the information relates.
(b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations, Education and the Workforce, and Oversight
and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Appropriations, Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate--
(1) annual interim reports, not later than April 1 of the
year following the year of the date of enactment of this Act,
and each subsequent year through the year in which the final
report is submitted under paragraph (2), on the progress and
preliminary results of the evaluation of the opportunity
scholarship program funded under this Act; and
(2) a final report, not later than 1 year after the final
year for which a grant is made under section 4(a), on the
results of the evaluation of the program.
(c) Public Availability.--All reports and underlying data
gathered pursuant to this section shall be made available to
the public upon request, in a timely manner following
submission of the applicable report under subsection (b),
except that personally identifiable information shall not be
disclosed or made available to the public.
(d) Limit on Amount Expended.--The amount expended by the
Secretary to carry out this section for any fiscal year may
not exceed 5 percent of the total amount appropriated under
section 14(a)(1) for the fiscal year.
SEC. 10. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Activities Reports.--Each eligible entity receiving
funds under section 4(a) during a year shall submit a report
to the Secretary not later than July 30 of the following year
regarding the activities carried out with the funds during
the preceding year.
(b) Achievement Reports.--
(1) In general.--In addition to the reports required under
subsection (a), each eligible entity receiving funds under
section 4(a) shall, not later than September 1 of the year
during which the second school year of the entity's program
is completed and each of the next 2 years thereafter, submit
to the Secretary a report, including any pertinent data
collected in the preceding 2 school years, concerning--
(A) the academic growth and achievement of students
participating in the program;
(B) the high school graduation and college admission rates
of students who participate in the program, where
appropriate; and
(C) parental satisfaction with the program.
(2) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--No
report under this subsection may contain any personally
identifiable information.
(c) Reports to Parents.--
(1) In general.--Each eligible entity receiving funds under
section 4(a) shall ensure that each school participating in
the entity's program under this Act during a school year
reports at least once during the year to the parents of each
of the school's students who are participating in the program
on--
(A) the student's academic achievement, as measured by a
comparison with the aggregate academic achievement of other
participating students at the student's school in the same
grade or level, as appropriate, and the aggregate academic
achievement of the student's peers at the student's school in
the same grade or level, as appropriate;
(B) the safety of the school, including the incidence of
school violence, student suspensions, and student expulsions;
and
(C) the accreditation status of the school.
(2) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--No
report under this subsection may contain any personally
identifiable information, except as to the student who is the
subject of the report to that student's parent.
(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months after the
first appropriation of funds under section 14, and each
succeeding year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations, Education and the Workforce,
and Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, and Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, an annual report on the
findings of the reports submitted under subsections (a) and
(b).
SEC. 11. DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DC PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.
(a) Condition of Receipt of Funds.--As a condition of
receiving funds under this Act on behalf of the District of
Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public
charter schools, the Mayor shall agree to carry out the
following:
(1) Information requests.--Ensure that all the District of
Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public
charter schools comply with all reasonable requests for
information for purposes of the evaluation under section
9(a).
(2) Agreement with the secretary.--Enter into the agreement
described in section 9(a)(1)(B) 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 Act.
(3) Submission of report.--Not later than 6 months after
the first appropriation of funds under section 14, and each
succeeding year thereafter, submit to the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions, and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, information on--
(A) how the funds authorized and appropriated under this
Act for the District of Columbia public schools and the
District of Columbia public charter schools were used in the
preceding school year; and
(B) how such funds are contributing to student achievement.
(b) Enforcement.--If, after reasonable notice and an
opportunity for a hearing for the Mayor, the Secretary
determines that the Mayor has not been in compliance with 1
or more of the requirements described in subsection (a), the
Secretary may withhold from the Mayor, in whole or in part,
further funds under this Act for the District of Columbia
public schools and the District of Columbia public charter
schools.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to reduce, or otherwise affect, funding provided
under this Act for the opportunity scholarship program under
this Act.
SEC. 12. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.
(a) Repeal.--The DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003
(sec. 38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code) is repealed.
(b) Special Rules.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) funding appropriated to provide opportunity
scholarships for students in the District of Columbia under
the heading ``Federal Payment for School Improvement'' in
title IV of division D of the Omnibus Appropriations Act,
2009 (Public Law 111-8; 123 Stat. 653), the heading ``Federal
Payment for School Improvement'' in title IV of division C of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-
117; 123 Stat. 3181), or any other Act, may be used to
provide opportunity scholarships under section 7(a) for the
2011-2012 school year to students who have not previously
received such scholarships;
[[Page H2063]]
(2) the fourth and fifth provisos under the heading
``Federal Payment for School Improvement'' of title IV of
Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
(Public Law 111-117; 123 Stat. 3181) shall not apply; and
(3) any unobligated amounts reserved to carry out the
provisos described in paragraph (2) shall be made available
to an eligible entity receiving a grant under section 4(a)--
(A) for administrative expenses described in section 7(b);
or
(B) to provide opportunity scholarships under section 7(a),
including to provide such scholarships for the 2011-2012
school year to students who have not previously received such
scholarships.
(c) Multiyear Awards.--The recipient of a grant or contract
under the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 38-
1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code), as such Act was in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act, shall continue to receive funds in accordance with the
terms and conditions of such grant or contract, except that--
(1) the provisos relating to opportunity scholarships in
the Acts described in subsection (b)(1) shall not apply; and
(2) the memorandum of understanding described in subsection
(d), including any revision made under such subsection, shall
apply.
(d) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Secretary and the
Mayor of the District of Columbia shall revise the memorandum
of understanding entered into under the DC School Choice
Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official
Code), as such Act was in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of this Act, to address--
(1) the implementation of the opportunity scholarship
program under this Act; and
(2) how the Mayor will ensure that the District of Columbia
public schools and the District of Columbia public charter
schools comply with all the reasonable requests for
information as necessary to fulfill the requirements for
evaluations conducted under section 9(a).
(e) Orderly Transition.--Subject to subsections (c) and
(d), the Secretary shall take such steps as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to provide for the orderly
transition to the authority of this Act from any authority
under the provisions of the DC School Choice Incentive Act of
2003 (sec. 38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code), as such
Act was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 13. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school''
means an institutional day or residential school, including a
public elementary charter school, that provides elementary
education, as determined under District of Columbia law.
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means
any of the following:
(A) A nonprofit organization.
(B) A consortium of nonprofit organizations.
(3) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student'' means
a student who is a resident of the District of Columbia and
comes from a household--
(A) receiving assistance under the supplemental nutrition
assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); or
(B) whose income does not exceed--
(i) 185 percent of the poverty line; or
(ii) in the case of a student participating in the
opportunity scholarship program in the preceding year under
this Act or the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (sec.
38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code), as such Act was in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act,
300 percent of the poverty line.
(4) Mayor.--The term ``Mayor'' means the Mayor of the
District of Columbia.
(5) Parent.--The term ``parent'' has the meaning given that
term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(6) Participating eligible student.--The term
``participating eligible student'' means an eligible student
awarded an opportunity scholarship under this Act, without
regard to whether the student uses the scholarship to attend
a participating school.
(7) Participating school.--The term ``participating
school'' means a private elementary school or secondary
school participating in the opportunity scholarship program
of an eligible entity under this Act.
(8) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the
meaning given that term in section 9101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(9) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' means
an institutional day or residential school, including a
public secondary charter school, that provides secondary
education, as determined under District of Columbia law,
except that the term does not include any education beyond
grade 12.
(10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$60,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and for each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years, of which--
(1) one-third shall be made available to carry out the
opportunity scholarship program under this Act for each
fiscal year;
(2) one-third shall be made available to carry out section
4(b)(1) for each fiscal year; and
(3) one-third shall be made available to carry out section
4(b)(2) for each fiscal year.
(b) Apportionment.--If the total amount of funds
appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year does not
equal $60,000,000, the funds shall be apportioned in the
manner described in subsection (a) for such fiscal year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in House Report 112-45, if offered by the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) or her designee, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, and shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R.
471 and include extraneous materials thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in strong support
of H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act.
H.R. 471 is not new but H.R. 471 is essential. It reauthorizes and
makes improvements in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which
was created by Congress in 2003 to provide eligible low-income District
parents with an opportunity to send their children to a private school
of their choice.
{time} 1410
But it does more. It also provides an equal amount of money for
chartered public schools, which are greater in the District of Columbia
perhaps than anywhere else in the Nation, and an equal amount for
improving the public school system in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, this Act gives twice as much money to the two categories
of public schools--conventional schools and chartered public schools--
than it does to the scholarship program. However, the scholarship
program is a focus of this bill, and it's a focus because this program
has proven to be successful. In fact, 74 percent of all District
residents, when polled, favor the continuation of this program as to
these D.C. Opportunity Scholarships. Obviously among those who have had
opportunities they would not otherwise have had, those who have gone on
to college and enjoyed benefits because of their opportunity to seek an
education of their choice, it is 100 percent valuable.
Mr. Speaker, we have pursued regular order on this bill. We have gone
through both the subcommittee and the committee process. We have had an
extensive hearing, and we believe this bill is absolutely essential. I
will mention that, pursuant to the goals of the Republican House, we
have made some austerity. Originally, this would have been $75 million.
It is $15 million less because at this time, although we would like to
do more, we have to make those kinds of trimmings that are possible.
Still, Mr. Speaker, this is a jewel of the D.C. school system. It is
an opportunity for people to have the kind of choice they have in few
other areas. And I want to personally thank the Speaker of the House
for bringing this piece of legislation and for all of his work through
all of the years in which he worked so hard on the Education Committee
to understand this program in a way that no other Member does.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 471.
Let me be very clear: Public funds should support public education.
But this bill, which would authorize $300 million to support education
in the District of Columbia, includes an authorization for the
expenditure of $100 million over 5 years to enable a tiny fraction of
D.C. students to attend private schools. We have been told that the
purpose of this bill is to help D.C. children get a better education.
But House Republicans passed legislation earlier this year that slashes
billions of dollars from educational programs across the country. In
H.R. 1, which passed the House in February, House
[[Page H2064]]
Republicans cut $5.7 billion from the Pell Grant program, $1 billion
from Head Start, $757 million from Federal Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants, $694 million from Title I-A grants, and $100
million from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Under these
Republican cuts, nearly 44,000 students from the District of Columbia
could see their Pell Grants reduced, 700 would lose their Head Start
placements, 500 could face reduced or eliminated after-school
placements, and 2,500 would lose supplemental educational services.
Remarkably now, after voting to leave so many behind, the Republican
leadership wants to authorize $100 million in new spending just for
private schools in the District as part of a $300 million authorization
for education in that one district. And the majority does not even pay
for any part of this $300 million bill. Let me be clear on this point:
There is no offset for this bill. For that reason, H.R. 471 also
appears to violate the legislative protocols issued by the majority
with such fanfare at the beginning of this Congress. So all the
rhetoric supposedly justifying massive cuts to education funding, all
the talks about budget constraints, about tightening our belts, and
about making sacrifices, all that goes out the window when the majority
wants to give $100 million in taxpayer funds to private schools.
Also problematic is that the D.C. voucher program has not resulted in
better student achievement. The Institute for Education Sciences
evaluated this program and found that in 2010, there was no overall
statistically significant impact on student achievement in reading or
math. By comparison, reading and math test scores did improve among
students enrolled in the District's public schools and its public
charter schools from 2007 to 2010.
The bill is also a direct assault on D.C. home rule. The Speaker did
not consult with the District's representative or its elected officials
before introducing the bill. Our committee did not receive testimony
from the mayor of the District before we marked up this bill. And the
Republicans have not introduced a national voucher bill because using
taxpayer dollars to fund private schools is highly unpopular and has
failed in every referendum placed on State ballots.
Despite all of these arguments against the bill, to me, the most
significant problem is that it diverts funds away from educational
programs that help all of the District's 70,000 students. Instead, the
bill would use a lottery system to award vouchers to send about 1.3
percent of District students to private schools. I know there are
Members on the other side of the aisle who are truly concerned about
the education of our Nation's children, and they have a sincere desire
to help students of the District of Columbia. But we should help all of
the students. We should provide a high-quality education for all of
them, and we should support continued improvements that raise all
student achievement.
I have said it over and over again: The greatest threat to our
national security is the failure to properly educate every single one
of our children, every one of them. We should not adopt a measure that
spends $100 million so that about 1,000 students can go to private
schools. And as a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of
quality public education, as one who has sat on a charter school board,
I agree with the President's statement of the administration's policy
which opposes creating or expanding a voucher program and asserts that
the ``Federal Government should focus its attention and available
resources on improving the quality of public schools for all
students.'' Because this bill does not do that, I urge my colleagues to
reject H.R. 471 in its current form.
Mr. Speaker, later during this debate, my distinguished colleague
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of
Columbia, will offer an amendment to redirect funding for private
schools to improve public education for all of the District's students.
This amendment is a thoughtful improvement, and I urge all Members to
support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, this legislation
that would reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This
program was created in 2004 with bipartisan support. This program has
provided an educational lifeline and meaningful choices to thousands of
District families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Everyone agrees now that our educational system is broken. As we work
to craft targeted reforms, we must support existing education programs
that improve student achievement. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program is one such initiative with a proven track record of success.
Over the past 7 years, this program has helped more than 3,000 low-
income children receive a high-quality education at the private school
of their choice. The Department of Education's own research confirms
the program's success in increasing graduation rates to more than 90
percent in the low-income population of students previously trapped in
underperforming schools.
{time} 1420
Additionally, this scholarship program has improved parental
involvement in education. Four consecutive studies have shown parents
of program participants are more engaged in their children's education
and more satisfied with their academic progress than parents of public
school students.
The evidence is clear, Mr. Speaker. This innovative program works and
serves as a real alternative for parents who want to give their
children the educational opportunities they never had. Yet, despite
this proof, the administration and some in Congress are determined to
destroy this groundbreaking program.
Without the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, thousands of
parents will be denied an opportunity to make decisions about their
children's education. Equally troubling, thousands of children will be
denied the opportunity to achieve their full potential, leaving them
unequipped to succeed in a 21st century workforce. We must put children
first and stop a vocal minority from taking vital opportunities away
from thousands of D.C. families.
The program has received widespread support from Washington
residents, including three former Democratic Mayors, several members of
the D.C. City Council, and thousands of students and parents. Congress
cannot turn its back and deny students a chance, a chance for a better
future.
As our Nation fights to get back to the path to prosperity, we cannot
afford to eliminate critical educational opportunities that will
prepare our Nation's youth for tomorrow's workforce.
All parents should be empowered to decide what school is best for
their child. A quality education should not be a luxury available only
to those who can afford it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his
terrific help on all we have done on this bill.
Let me count the ways I strongly oppose H.R. 471:
Because it reestablished a program that failed to improve academic
achievement as measured by standardized reading and math tests;
Because it infringes on the local government's right to make
decisions about quintessentially local education matters;
Because it was introduced without so much as consultation with any
elected official from the affected jurisdiction, the jurisdiction I
represent;
Because it provides Federal funds to send students to religious and
other private schools, despite the absence of support for vouchers, as
demonstrated by the failure of every State referendum to authorize
vouchers, including two in California; and
Because it increases the deficit by $300 million, violating the
majority's own CutGo for discretionary authorization legislative
protocols.
Although I am a proud graduate of the D.C. Public Schools and
strongly
[[Page H2065]]
support our public schools, especially given their great improvement, I
have always supported public charter alternatives for those parents who
are dissatisfied with our traditional public schools. Children can't
wait until public schools now in the throes of ``a race to the top''
meet the top.
I'm proud that the District of Columbia has the largest charter
school system in the United States of America, with almost half of our
children attending. Parents and organizations in the District of
Columbia have made this alternative, not the Congress of the United
States.
The existence and the phenomenal growth of our public charter schools
has fueled the competition that has actually helped our public schools
improve. The reason is because the charter schools and the public
schools, unlike the voucher schools, are competing for the same local
dollars.
So, today, it is interesting to note that the National Assessment of
Educational Progress found that the D.C. Public Schools have awakened
to the competition, and now is the only one of 18 large urban school
systems that showed improvement in the fourth and eighth-grade
achievement tests over the past 2 years.
Now, contrast this with what the Bush Education Department found for
the very voucher program we will be voting on in H.R. 471, and I'm
quoting:
The Department of education found ``no conclusive evidence that the
Opportunity Scholarship Program affected student achievement'' as
measured by standardized reading and math tests. Yet the program was
established precisely to measure and improve performance of the lowest
achieving students in our schools.
D.C. charter schools, however, outperform the D.C. public schools and
greatly outperform the voucher schools. Our public charter schools at
the middle and high school level, with a majority of economically
disadvantaged students, scored almost twice as high as their D.C.
Public School counterparts in math and reading, and the graduation rate
of charter school students is 24 percent higher than the graduation
rate of our traditional public high schools and 8 percent higher than
the national average. Yet these public charter schools have a higher
percentage of African American students and of disadvantaged students
than our public schools.
They are entirely accountable. They can be closed and, like public
schools, they have been closed.
With this remarkable record, why in the world would anyone pick the
District of Columbia to impose a voucher program on, or target the only
big school system that has set up an alternative public charter school
system?
If the majority were truly interested in our education agenda,
instead of their own, they would do what former Speaker Newt Gingrich
did. When he approached me about private school vouchers, I told him of
public opposition to vouchers in the city, but not to charter schools,
as demonstrated by a fledgling charter school program in the District
that had attracted few charters. And there was a District of Columbia
charter school law. He worked with me, not against me, to introduce a
bill----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I grant the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. NORTON. To introduce P.L. 104-134, which has helped us produce a
large-scale robust alternative public school system that is now a model
for the Nation.
The pattern of this Congress could not be clearer. They began by
stripping the District of Columbia of its vote. They have done nothing
but try to take from the District of Columbia with bill after bill. Now
they want to help us, against our will.
We reject the insult of your help with the children of the District
of Columbia. We are not second-class citizens. We are not children. If
you want to help us, give us the courtesy, have the good grace to ask
us how we want to be helped.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as it says in the Constitution, to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District, and
that is what we are doing.
It gives me great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), the whip of the House.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. As I listen to the debate, people want to
know if anybody was asked. You realize that there are four times as
many children who want a scholarship than there's one for? Those are
the people we should ask. Those are the people who have been asked.
Those are the people that have asked to be able to have a new life, a
new direction and a hope that we all dream about in America.
I will tell you, this morning, like almost every morning when I'm in
Washington, D.C., we get that time, we call home. As a husband and a
parent, I call my wife, and the first thing we talk about is our
children. We talk about our children, about how they're feeling, how
they're doing, but more importantly, how's their education--who are the
latest and where they are going. It's the same question that every
single parent that's a Member of this body asks. Every Member of this
body that's a parent doesn't care about what they will become. You care
about what your children will become.
{time} 1430
The greatest opportunity you have for your children to expand all the
dreams and hopes they have as an American is making sure they have the
right education. But it is not just for a select few. We want to make
sure everybody does.
Last Congress, one of the toughest times I watched on this floor was
the new Obama administration and the Democratic majority, where they
worked to terminate this program to prevent new children from
participating, and going so far as revoking 216 new children for a
scholarship that had already been elected to the 2009-2010 school year.
Not only was it unfair; it was unwise.
We have an opportunity on this floor to do something different. We
have an opportunity on this floor to actually make a correction. It is
not a correction for you and me. It is a correction of a hope and a
dream that a child can unleash and unshackle something that holds them
back. It is a dream that they can rise to the occasion, they can have
the foundation, they can have the ability that the country has always
talked about. That is why I support the SOAR Act, because I believe
these children can soar higher. I believe these children can reach a
new dream, and I do not believe in holding them back.
For all those who sit there and still want more, four to every one, I
for one am going to join with them. Support this bill and support a new
hope and dream. It is not about what we will become. It will be about
what the next generation in America can achieve, and we want them to
soar to new heights.
Mr. CUMMINGS. In regards to what was just stated by the gentleman, we
care about all these children. And it would be helpful if $5.7 billion
was not slashed from the Pell Grants when these kids get to college.
It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. I thank the chair for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to say that I think
this debate is a distraction. I have spent a lot of time visiting
schools and talking with teachers and parents in my district, and this
debate does nothing to address what they tell me they need.
What they want is for us to work together to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act and to fix the things that we
know are wrong with No Child Left Behind.
If we care about improving their education, we should be working to
make our system more flexible and less punitive, which is something
that both sides of the aisle agree needs to happen.
I urge my colleagues to come together to work on the pressing
education issues: America's decline in international education
rankings; unacceptable dropout rates and achievement gaps; and the need
to create a smart, innovative workforce prepared for the jobs of
tomorrow.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, no one has worked harder on this than my
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy),
to whom I yield 3 minutes.
[[Page H2066]]
Mr. GOWDY. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of
Oversight for his graciousness and leadership.
Mr. Speaker, we have found consensus. Sweet, elusive consensus. We
found it. Not in a final committee vote; that would be too much to ask.
Not even in the testimony of the witnesses who came before the
subcommittee. But we found consensus among the Members themselves, one
after the other after the other who testified as to the power and the
magic of education to transform not just their lives but generations of
lives.
I spoke with a distinguished Member from the other side of the aisle,
a gentleman that I happen to like and respect very much and is one of
the most powerful speakers in this body. And I will not call his name
because the conversation was not public. But he recalled for me the day
that he was sworn into office, and how his father came to him with
tears streaming down his face. And some of the tears were the tears
that only a father can have who is delighting in the success of a
child. But some of the tears were also the acknowledgement that it
could have been the father and not the son had the father not been born
in the wrong town, at the wrong time, and in the wrong State, and, yes,
in the eyes of our educational system of yesterday, the wrong race.
It is that shared acknowledgement that education is the pathway to
prosperity that makes me struggle with how someone can oppose this
bill. The parents want it. They feel more vested. They feel like their
children are safer.
Mr. Speaker, you should have seen the parents that came and crossed
political and cultural and racial lines to testify on behalf of this
bill in the subcommittee. They want it desperately. The students want
it. They feel safer. They feel like it's an educational environment
that is conducive to their learning. Their test scores are higher. But
even if they were not, their graduation rates are higher.
As a former prosecutor who cannot remember the last high school
graduate that I prosecuted, the simple fact that they are graduated
from high school in and of itself is enough of a reason to support
this. Educational achievement is higher. Educational attainment is
higher.
The parents want the same choices for their kids that the President
of the United States and, indeed, most of us who are Members of
Congress have for ours. Even the United States Department of Education
once lauded this program as an example of something that works, until
someone or something told them to think otherwise. The residents of the
District of Columbia, again crossing racial, political lines
overwhelmingly support this program.
And the most insidious argument is also the most demonstrably false,
that somehow this program takes dollars away from the three-sectored
approach that the District of Columbia uses. The public schools will
still be funded. Their charter schools will still be funded. This just
provides a third alternative, a third choice for parents who
desperately want it and need it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. GOWDY. One of the reasons that public approval for our body is
sometimes so historically low is we have a tendency to demagogue those
with whom we disagree and we create false dichotomies. This bill is no
more about the independence of the District of Columbia than anything
else. The District of Columbia does not think twice before accepting
Federal dollars for the public school system, the charter school
system, or a host of other agendas. Nor does the District of Columbia
think twice when it accepts Pell Grant monies that allow an 18-year-old
to go to Georgetown, which is a private school, but will not allow a
17-year-old to go to a private high school.
Nor is this bill about whether or not someone believes in the public
school system. I went to the public schools in South Carolina. My wife
teaches in the public schools in South Carolina. And my son will
graduate from the public schools in South Carolina. But I will miss his
graduation, like many of you have missed things in your lives, because
we will be in session.
What I will not miss is the opportunity to throw a lifeline to kids
who were born through the vicissitudes of life into poverty. We will
give them the same choices and chances that we have had.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is not a false dichotomy when, through
H.R. 1, $1.8 billion is being slashed from the Head Start budget,
causing 218,220 Head Start students to not get a start.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman
Danny Davis.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in opposition to H.R. 471,
the D.C. voucher bill. While I share the same commitment to improving
the quality of education here in D.C., in Chicago, and throughout the
Nation, as a staunch supporter of public schools I strongly disagree
with vouchering public dollars to private schools and institutions. I
do not believe that the D.C. public schools should become experimental
labs for the rest of the Nation. As I have stated previously on a
number of occasions, paying for school vouchers translates into fewer
taxpayer dollars for traditional public schools which have the
responsibility to educate all, and I emphasize, all of the children.
Improving public education in the District of Columbia, as in the
rest of the Nation, has been and continues to be a long and arduous
task. It is an absolute priority of mine. However, now is not the time
to abandon our obligation to ensure top-notch public education for all
students by shifting Federal dollars to private schools.
I understand and commend the Federal Government for playing a
critical role in providing the District with badly needed funding for
improving education since 2004.
{time} 1440
But I have never found any conclusive evidence that vouchers have
increased achievement, nor have I seen any evidence in any study that
an overall school district has improved as a result of vouchers. If the
Federal Government is serious about improving the quality of education
for the city's 70,000-plus deservedly young minds, then we should place
our resources towards educational opportunities for all.
I must add that in the District we have seen improvement during the
last 2 and 3 years. And while we didn't seek any real testimony from
the officials of the District of Columbia or school officials and
students in public schools, we did hear from Delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton, whose thoughts represent the thinking of a large number of
Washingtonians, and she has told us that continued investment in D.C.'s
public school reform efforts will yield far greater benefits for the
city as a whole rather than spending millions of dollars on less than
2,000 students to attend private schools.
I agree with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. She represents the
thinking of the people of the District of Columbia. I urge that we vote
down this voucher bill and support the amendment that will be presented
by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to yield the customary 1
minute to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), Speaker of the House.
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and let me start
by also thanking him and the members of the Government Reform Committee
for their work on this bill. Also I want to thank our 50 cosponsors and
all the Members on both sides of the aisle who are standing with us
today. I also appreciate the efforts of our colleagues in the Senate,
particularly Senator Joe Lieberman, who are working on similar
legislation.
Today, the House will have the opportunity to do something special
for the future of our country. I think just about every Member would
agree that we have got to do everything we can to help our education
system. Americans are concerned that their children won't be able to
have the same blessings that they have had, and if we want to protect
the American Dream, there is no substitute for a quality education.
My view has always been that education reform starts with giving
children a way out of our most underachieving public schools. Of
course,
[[Page H2067]]
that doesn't mean that we abandon those schools. It means we take some
of the pressure off of them while they work to turn themselves around.
So we came together here about 7 years ago and said let's try
something different. Instead of just throwing money at the problem,
let's empower parents from lower-income families to choose the schools
that are best for them. We wouldn't deny any school money that they had
already been receiving. We would be injecting freedom and competition
into a system that is caught up in the status quo.
We had a strong bipartisan coalition, including Anthony Williams, who
was the Mayor here at the time, and Dick Armey, who for years led this
fight in the House, paving the way for this program. He and I started
working together on school choice in the early nineties when we served
on the Education and Labor Committee together. We said let's give kids
in our capital city a real chance at success and a real shot at the
American Dream that they don't have. We thought to ourselves, what do
we have to be afraid of? Well, as it turned out, there was nothing that
we needed to be afraid of.
Thousands of families have taken advantage of the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program, and there is strong evidence that it is both
effective and cost-effective. Unfortunately, the education
establishment in our country sees this Opportunity Scholarship Program
as a threat. In reality, this is an opportunity to raise the bar,
because competition makes everybody better. I think if you look beyond
the talking points and focus on the facts, you will find that the D.C.
program provides a model that can work in other communities around our
Nation.
Now, I think all of you know that this issue is important to me, but
I will tell you this: This is not about me. I am proud to say that I
have supported the Opportunity Scholarship Program from the get-go, but
I am even more proud of the fact that I had nothing to do with its
success. For that, we can thank the students and parents who have
become more than the program's beneficiaries--they are its greatest
ambassadors.
In recent days, I have received letters from many of them asking
Congress to do the right thing, and I will be submitting some of those
for the Record. You see, they know what it was like before. They
remember living just blocks from great schools, but feeling miles away
from them, and all they did was ask us to have a chance to have the
same kind of education that kids down the street were getting. There is
no controversial idea here. It is the American way.
So if we are serious about bipartisan education reform, we should
start by saving this successful bipartisan program that has helped so
many underprivileged children here in D.C. get a chance at a quality
education. I urge the House to support and save this important program.
March 29, 2011.
Dear Speaker Boehner, I want to thank you for spending so
much time and energy on a cause that does not benefit you but
helps me and a lot other DC children.
I was a lucky one. I had the opportunity to be a scholar
and it worked! I was accepted into Archbishop Carroll and
Bishop McNamara High School. I'm proud of my success. One day
I would like to attend Spellman College. When I get to
college I know it will be because of the solid foundation I
received in my elementary school. The foundation for my
future was possible because of my scholarship.
Again, thank you for fighting to save the Opportunity
Scholarship. I know you care about us and I wish you a lot of
good luck!
Sincerely,
Samaya Mack,
8th grade,
St. Anthony Catholic School.
____
March 29, 2011.
Dear Mr. Speaker, my name is Katherine Campos and I am a
recipient of the Opportunity Scholarship. I am an eighth
grader at Sacred Heart School and have received the
scholarship for the past six years.
I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for
introducing the SOAR Act to Congress. I know that you really
believe in the Opportunity Scholarship and that means the
world to me. I believe in the scholarship, too.
The scholarship has offered me an escape from some of the
harsher realities of the city. It has offered me a chance to
grow in my spirituality and academics because it allowed my
mom to choose Sacred Heart for me. My family is happy now
that I have a better chance of getting into a good high
school. Without the scholarship, I wouldn't be where I am
today and I wouldn't have as much hope for tomorrow. I know
that I am better prepared for a successful future because I
am a recipient of the Opportunity Scholarship.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for all that you are doing to help
me and all the other scholarship recipients. You really do
make a difference in my world.
Sincerely,
Katherine Campos,
8th grade,
Sacred Heart School.
____
March 29, 2011.
Dear Mr. Speaker, We met for the first time at the State of
the Union. Remember you gave me advice on giving interviews?
Since then a lot of people have asked me about OSP and I just
wanted to say thank you, Mr. Speaker, for all of the hard
work you're putting into bringing back this Program. This
program has helped me and a lot of other DC children.
Without this program I would not have attended St. Anthony
Catholic School and probably would not have achieved the
success I have. I love my school and am glad my parents had
the option to send me here.
Since we met I am proud to share that I earned a full four
year academic scholarship to Gonzaga and will be going there
in the fall. This high school scholarship was possible
because the elementary school that my parents chose for me
provided me with a strong academic foundation. I know I will
do well in high school. And then, I plan to do well at Ohio
State University for college.
I hope the SOAR Act passes so other kids will get the
chance I did. Thank you again!
Sincerely,
Obi Mbanefo,
8th grade,
St. Anthony Catholic School.
____
March 29, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, I am writing to thank you for never
giving up in your fight to restore the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program.
As a mother who has seen the benefits of the program first-
hand, I can attest to the value of this program. Nico, my
nine year old son attends Naylor Road Private School on an
opportunity scholarship and is excelling in his small
classes. If Nico were unable to attend Naylor Road, he would
have been forced to attend a failing, underperforming school.
I can also attest to the heartbreak of having my daughter's
scholarship revoked by President Obama's Secretary of
Education. My daughter Nia received an opportunity
scholarship in 2009 to attend the same school as her brother
and receive the same educational opportunities. But that is
no longer the case.
My daughter was one of 216 students who received a letter
from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan retracting her
scholarship. Suddenly, I did not know where I was going to
send my daughter to school. I know that I will not send my
daughter to any of the schools in my area. While I have been
blessed by emergency, private scholarships to send Nia to
Naylor Road with her brother, I do not know if this support
will continue.
As a single mother on disability, I am unable to work
enough to afford tuition. Education is the first priority in
my household, and this program allows my children to attend
safe schools and thrive.
I can tell you that your work, and that of so many other
Members of Congress, has not gone unnoticed in the parts of
our city that many people too often ignore.
For me, it will mean a quality education for my children.
It will also mean peace of mind, because I will know that my
children will not, one day, be separated--my son to attend a
safe and nurturing school, and my daughter, forced elsewhere.
Please keep fighting for this program. Please. And I
encourage all Members of Congress to follow your lead in
voting YES for the SOAR Act. I know that with the chance to
thrive in better schools, my children will truly SOAR!
Sincerely,
LaTasha Bennett.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, most respectfully to our Speaker, I know
his intentions are very good and honorable, and I wanted to be clear on
this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that we care about every single
child being educated and becoming all that God meant for them to be,
too. That is why we oppose the $1.08 billion cut from Head Start in
H.R. 1 and the $5.7 billion cut from the Federal Pell Grant program.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), the ranking member of the Education and Workforce
Committee.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding. I thank him for his discussion of this legislation on the
floor.
I rise in opposition to this legislation because I don't believe that
we can afford to spend $100 million on a program
[[Page H2068]]
that in fact, in spite of what has been said on the other side, has
been proven time and again to be ineffective and inefficient.
Supporting our students, especially in poor minority communities, is
the right thing to do, and particularly in this economy it is
absolutely essential. But that is not what this bill does.
If you really care about school reform, you want to help our
students, our future, you do it in a sustainable and systematic way.
You can't arbitrarily throw money at a small group of students and just
hope against overwhelming evidence that your ideology somehow will work
this time. You can't decide that only a handful of students deserve
special attention. You can't ask Congress to vote for programs that the
citizens of D.C. and the elected officials and the Mayor have not asked
for. You certainly can't decide to continue a program that does not
help students succeed.
There are a number of concerns about this bill. First and most
importantly, the program does not help the students succeed. Just 2
weeks ago, the Republicans made harmful cuts in proven programs based
upon purported standards of inefficiency, seeking to get rid of
inefficient programs. If this is the standard, the D.C. voucher program
fails the test.
The D.C. voucher program does not increase student achievement or
graduate students so they are prepared to go on to college or careers.
In fact, four Department of Education studies over both administrations
found that the voucher program has had no effect on the academic
achievement of the voucher students.
These findings are consistent with other private school voucher
programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland. Just yesterday, the State test
results showed that voucher students in Milwaukee's 20-year voucher
program are actually performing similar or worse than other poor
Milwaukee students. The study mandated by Congress about the D.C.
voucher program says very clearly that the use of vouchers had no
statistically significant impact on the overall student achievement in
math or reading.
So what is the purpose of the expenditure of this money, other than
to prop up an inefficient, an ineffective, ideological point of view
about how these students might learn? These students are not going to
the schools that will change the outcomes.
{time} 1450
These students are not graduating with a set of skills that will
allow them to succeed in college or a career. But the fact of the
matter is there are many public schools in the District of Columbia
that are in fact achieving those goals that are working for those
parents and for those students.
The District of Columbia has open choice. Parents can go wherever.
But we simply decided to take these Federal dollars and put it into a
program on the belief that it works in spite of all of the evidence
that it's not working for these students. So why are we paying a
premium of another $100 million in taxpayers' money to pursue this
effort when on its face it's not working? Yes, you've done telephone
surveys of parents and they said, I think I made a good choice. Okay.
You do telephone surveys of the students, Are you any safer? The answer
is: No, we don't feel any safer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ additional minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. A great deal is made about the
choice of these parents. It's to be honored and respected. What about
the choice of the parents of Head Start students that made a choice to
put their children into Head Start, in an effective program that makes
a difference when they leave that program on whether or not they are
school ready, whether or not they're prepared to proceed at fourth
grade and eighth grade and tenth grade, those critical points when a
student decides to drop out of school. Those parents who are making the
choice about effective education for their children, they get cut, a
quarter of a million of them. But if you make an ineffective choice and
it's consistent with the ideology, you get funded.
That's just not the way we should do business here, and that's not
the way to do business in terms of school reform. That's not the way to
help these children, and that's not the way to incentivize the other
schools that are struggling to achieve better results, to achieve
better success for their students.
If you're going to say, We'll fund them, whether it's successful or
not, we'll put a $100 million into it because it comports with our view
of the constellations, that's just the wrong way to proceed in this
effort for these children and for other children who will follow them.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Buerkle).
Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, the Scholarships
for Opportunity and Results Act, because today I stand here not only as
a Member of Congress but also as a mother of six children and a
grandmother of 11. I know from personal experience the process that
parents follow when they're choosing which school is the best choice
for their children. Each child has different needs, different
strengths. And as a parent reaches out to make that choice, we can
realize that school choice is not cookie cutter. It should not and it
must not be. And who better to make that decision than the parents of
that child? Who knows best the needs of that student? Certainly, not
the government bureaucracy.
The SOAR Act is about empowering parents to make the choice that's
best for their own child. The Act is about giving them the freedom to
pursue educational opportunities not available to them in failing
public schools. The parents of the D.C. public school children deserve
the same opportunities as Members of Congress, the Secretary of
Education, and the President of the United States. Sadly, the parents
of the children in the D.C. voucher program do not have the ability to
pick up and move elsewhere for better public schools, and they can't
afford private schools.
The D.C. system needs substantial and sustained reform, but that
reform process does not have to come at the expense of the children who
live in the District. I stand here and I encourage my colleagues to
support H.R. 471.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, our public schools need more resources, not less. This
bill diverts funds that could be used for public schools into private
school vouchers. Instead of helping public schools, the bill helps the
privileged few who can both win the lottery and have the resources to
pay the difference between the voucher and the cost of an education.
That cost of education is usually more than just the tuition charged.
So the recipient not only has to cover the whole tuition but also has
to get access to a charity or a religious institution that would
subsidize the cost of the education. Many who win the voucher lottery
find that they can't even use the voucher because they can't afford the
remaining cost of education.
And so we've heard a lot about the so-called choice of a private
school education. That choice is only available to those who win the
voucher lottery. So it's not a choice. It's a chance. With that same
logic we can solve the Social Security problem by just selling Lotto
tickets. Those who win the Lotto will be much better off. But, of
course, few will win. Likewise, 90 percent of those who seek a voucher
will lose the voucher lottery, and so they don't have a choice. Even
though they have chosen the lottery, they don't have the choice. They
will remain in public schools. And those schools will be worse because
the money has been diverted.
The evidence now shows that even those who win the lottery may not be
better off. Studies of the D.C. voucher program reveal that there's
virtually no improvement in education. Furthermore, those the program
was supposed to help are the ones that are benefiting. Those in failing
schools represent a small portion of those who use vouchers. Many of
those who use vouchers were already in private schools. And many more
would have gone to private schools anyway.
[[Page H2069]]
The schools that these children attend with vouchers are not covered
by the same educational accountability standards as public schools, and
the students and employees are not covered by the same civil rights
protections. So we should defeat this bill and channel these funds into
the public schools in Washington, D.C.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, sometimes you just hear something that's hard
to believe. We're wasting money here in Washington. The American people
are hearing it first here today.
[From the Washington Post]
White House Ignores Evidence of How D.C. School Vouchers Work
With the House poised to vote Wednesday on legislation to
reestablish a voucher program that allows low-income D.C.
students to attend private schools, the Obama administration
issued a strongly worded statement of opposition. The White
House of course has a right to its own opinion, as
wrongheaded as we believe it to be. It doesn't have a right
to make up facts.
``Rigorous evaluation over several years demonstrates that
the D.C. program has not yielded improved student achievement
by its scholarship recipients compared to other students in
D.C.,'' President Obama's Office of Management and Budget
proclaimed Tuesday, in response to H.R. 471, sponsored by
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
That dismissal might come as a surprise to Patrick J. Wolf,
the principal investigator who helped conduct the rigorous
studies of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and who
has more than a decade of experience evaluating school choice
programs.
Here's what Mr. Wolf had to say about the program in Feb.
16 testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Operations. ``In my opinion, by demonstrating
statistically significant experimental impacts on boosting
high school graduation rates and generating a wealth of
evidence suggesting that students also benefited in reading
achievement, the DC OSP has accomplished what few educational
interventions can claim: It markedly improved important
education outcomes for low-income inner-city students.''
There are, we believe, other benefits to a program that
expands educational opportunities for disadvantaged children.
The program, which provides vouchers of $7,500 to low-income,
mainly minority students to attend private schools, is highly
regarded by parents, who often feel it allows their children
to attend safer schools or ones that strongly promote
achievement. Our view has never been that this voucher
program is a substitute for public school or public school
reform. But while that reform proceeds, scholarships allow a
few thousand poor children to escape failing schools and
exercise a right that middle-class parents take for granted--
the right, and dignity, of choice.
We understand the argument against using public funds for
private, and especially parochial, schools. But it is
parents, not government, choosing where to spend the
vouchers. Given that this program takes no money away from
public or public charter schools; that the administration
does not object to parents directing Pell grants to Notre
Dame or Georgetown; and that members of the administration
would never accept having to send their own children to
failing schools, we don't think the argument is very
persuasive. Maybe that's why an administration that promised
never to let ideology trump evidence is making an exception
in this case.
____
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 30, 2011]
School Choice Is Not a Partisan Issue
(By Kevin P. Chavous)
Seventy-four percent of people rarely agree on anything.
In Pew poll in September, for instance, not even 60 percent
of Americans could correctly name Joe Biden as the vice
president. But here in Washington, there is overwhelming
consensus on something: education reform. More specifically--
the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Indeed, 74 percent of city residents, multiple members of
the D.C. Council--including Chairman Kwame R. Brown--former
local Democratic elected officials like me and former mayor
Anthony A. Williams, and thousands of parents, students and
other activists all support the Scholarships for Opportunity
and Results (SOAR) Act, set for a vote in the House today.
This legislation would reauthorize the Opportunity
Scholarship Program, a federally funded initiative that
provides low-income children with money to attend private
schools. It would also infuse the District's traditional
public and public charter schools with $40 million in
additional funding per year.
It's a smart, well-constructed plan. But if we were to
listen only to the national narrative surrounding school
choice in the District, it would seem as if all of the
program's supporters were Republicans and none of them have
any connection to the city besides happening to work here on
weekdays.
In reality, local support for returning all options to the
District's low-income children comes from all corners of the
city. After years of divisive battles over the creation of
the program, its destruction in 2009, and its path toward
resurrection in the current Congress, there is wide support
among local leaders for the view that reauthorizing the
program will be beneficial for students and families, as well
as all three education sectors serving children in the city.
Even Mayor Vincent Gray has in the past expressed support for
the three-sector federal initiative, and it was noteworthy
that he was not critical of the voucher program itself--
emphasizing instead home-rule issues and the success of the
city's public and charter schools--in his lone Capitol Hill
appearance to testify on the reauthorization bill.
The only significant local opposition comes from D.C. Del.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, who claimed at a House oversight
hearing on the SOAR Act that providing educational options
for low-income students was somehow a ploy by Republicans to
use District children to further a set of ``ideological
preferences'' by dismissing the ``independent, self-
governing'' nature of Washington.
But if the city is to truly be self-governing as its
representative suggests she wants, Norton and other
scholarship opponents must do what they so often criticize
others for not doing. They must listen to the city's
residents.
The only common ideology among supporters of the
Opportunity Scholarship Program is that it's the right thing
to do. Parents of the 91 percent of program participants who
graduate from high school know that, as do the parents of
students who have seen their children increase their reading
scores through the program. These are certainly many of the
same people who elected Norton to her 11th term as their
representative in Congress with 89 percent of the vote in
November.
This is not, as pundits often contend, a partisan issue.
The large majority of the city's residents are Democrats--
myself included--and we believe in a set of core values that
are consistent with both Democratic ideals and a more
fundamental set of ideals rooted in the belief that all
children deserve a chance to receive a quality education by
any means necessary.
And we're tired of seeing opponents of school choice use
traditional party breakdowns as cover for opposition to a
program that works or use disparaging language about the
intentions of the other side. The fact of the matter is that
those who continue to fight for this program want what's best
for the District's children, and there is a simple reason why
a city full of Democrats want to bring the Opportunity
Scholarship Program back to the nation's capital: It's the
right thing to do.
____
[From Politico, Mar. 30, 2011]
Giving Students a Chance at Success
(By Rep. Darrell Issa and Rep. John Kline and Rep. Harold Rogers)
The House is due to vote Wednesday on reinstating the
Opportunity Scholarship Program for the District of Columbia.
This is a critical education reform that can offer low-
income students and their parents the chance to break out of
low-performing public schools and receive a quality
education. The reauthorized program would give an annual
voucher of $8,000 for elementary students and $12,000 for
secondary students within 185 percent of the poverty line. It
could make it possible for thousands of district school
children to prepare for college at the competitive private
school of their choice.
But it is not just about helping one city's schoolchildren.
This is part of a larger national conversation about school
reform. Across the country, an increasing number of states
are looking for ways to break the cycle of low graduation
rates and substandard public education to give under-
privileged students an educational environment where they can
succeed.
Opponents of school choice represent some of the most
powerful special interests in the country. Teachers unions,
for example, have long opposed school choice and have tried
to block voucher programs like the DC Opportunity
Scholarship. It was pressure from these groups that
influenced President Barack Obama's decision to end the DC
scholarship two years ago. This injustice must be corrected.
The success of school choice programs like this one--which
was originally passed in 2004--is convincing. Parental
satisfaction for scholarship recipients far exceeds that of
parents whose children are trapped in failing public schools.
Students in the Washington program who get to attend
better-performing private schools in the District are
approximately three months ahead in reading ability, compared
to non-scholarship students. Graduation rates for scholarship
recipients are more than 30 percentage points higher than
others in the district's public schools.
These programs enjoy widespread support among those
involved. Almost 75 percent of D.C. residents believe the
Opportunity Scholarship Program's success deserves
reauthorization, according to a recent poll by the American
Federation of Children. The D.C. City Council chairman, Kwame
Brown, favors continuing the program, as do two former
Washington mayors.
Growing bipartisan support in Congress means Democrats and
Republicans can work together to help underprivileged
students in Washington--which is Congress's responsibility
under the Constitution.
School choice programs, like the DC Opportunity
Scholarship, strengthen public education systems by offering
greater competition. A study by economist David Figlio
[[Page H2070]]
of Northwestern University demonstrated that similar school
choice programs in other parts of the country have improved
public education.
In fact, no study to date has suggested school choice hurts
student achievement in public schools.
Everyone benefits from the success of these school choice
programs. High-performing students are better-equipped for a
college education. College graduates are better prepared for
well-paying jobs.
In this economy, Congress should be doing everything it can
to give the next generation of lawyers, doctors, teachers,
engineers and entrepreneurs a chance to suceed. School choice
is a critical part of the path to success.
Support for school choice is about providing immediate
assistance for parents and their children--many of whom now
wait years to get into charter schools. In many cases, these
parents know that their kids attend some of the nation's
worst public schools, with some of the highest rates of drug
use and crime. No parent should be forced to keep their
children in unsafe schools that fail to provide a quality
education.
We can think of no reason why Washington students should
wait for long-term public school reform when immediate relief
is now possible.
Reauthorizing the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program can
open the doors to success for thousands of students living in
the shadow of their nation's Capitol. More than that, it
provides an example for states across the country to follow
as they seek to reform a broken system of public education.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar.
Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our children are being let down. Our education system is no longer
the world's best. In the District of Columbia, they are facing an
education crisis like none other in our country. According to some
experts, the D.C. public schools spend over $20,000 per year on each
and every student. Despite this, D.C. students perform the worst when
compared to all 50 States. One study found that only 13 percent of
eighth-graders in the D.C. public schools were proficient in reading.
This must change.
You may be wondering, Why is Congress focusing on just the D.C.
schools today? That is because the D.C. public schools are unique, in
that under the Constitution, Congress has the sole responsibility to
govern over the District of Columbia. With that in mind, it is our
responsibility to ensure that we no longer allow these students to slip
through the cracks. That is why I'm urging my colleagues to support
H.R. 471, the SOAR Act. This bill allows low-income D.C. students a
scholarship to attend a school of their parents' choice. Seventy-four
percent of parents in D.C. support this plan because that has achieved
real results.
While I believe education is best decided on the local level,
Congress is constitutionally obligated to fund D.C. students and their
education. That is why we must give parents the choice as to where
their children will attend school. We can't afford to continue to
ignore these students. They deserve a chance to attend better schools
that achieve greater results.
Today, we have a golden opportunity to make D.C. public schools
better. Today, we have an opportunity to help students in the lowest-
achieving school district in the country. Today, we can give D.C.
students an opportunity to succeed and pursue their dreams. Join me in
supporting H.R. 471.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
bill to expand the failed private school voucher program in Washington,
D.C. In this time of budget strife and cutbacks for public school
districts all across the country, this is the wrong time to take
Federal money away from public schools and give it to private schools.
When I evaluate education or any other policy, I want to see the
research on what works. Despite claims that the D.C. voucher system
would improve academic achievement of D.C. students, multiple
congressionally mandated Department of Education studies have concluded
that the program has not improved these students' academic achievement
in reading or math.
{time} 1500
Further, the studies found the voucher program to have had no effect
on student satisfaction, engagement, motivation, or students' feelings
of security. The studies found no significant impact on students'
career aspirations, participation in extracurricular activities,
homework completion, reading for fun, or tardiness. Students with
special education needs, English language learners, and gifted students
in the voucher program were less likely to have access to key services
than their peers in public school.
Despite receiving public money under the D.C. voucher program, these
private schools do not take all students. In addition, teachers at
these private schools are not subject to the same certification
requirements as those in D.C. public schools.
This bill also makes an exception to the majority's own budget rules,
which require that all legislation proposing new funding must slash
funding from somewhere else. This bill adds $300 million to the deficit
without any such offset. These kinds of exceptions make a mockery of
their own rules, particularly when there is little evidence to support
the underlying bill, itself.
I understand that many voucher supporters are disappointed with the
quality of our public schools. This says to me that there is common
ground for Members from both sides of the aisle to improve our public
schools. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. ISSA. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is a fascinating discussion we are having here. The gentleman
who spoke a while ago said, because this is a lottery and because not
every one of the children who wants in this program can get in the
program, it represents not a choice but a chance. I can tell you a lot
of these kids will settle for a chance. I mean, give them a chance.
Give them a choice, a chance, whatever. Just give them the opportunity,
however slim it might be. The fact that they only have a chance and
that not all of them can get in the program speaks about the demand for
the program. It speaks about how many people actually need it and value
it and want it, and we ought to expand it further and give more
individuals a chance.
I live in an area where there are pretty good public schools. My
children--I have five of them--have either been in the public schools
or are currently in the public schools. Those public schools are better
because of the competition around them. We have a robust charter school
program in Arizona. There are lots of them around. There are many
choices for kids to have. The public schools my kids attend are better
for it, and the same will hold true in D.C. as well.
If you want to improve the public schools where most children
typically attend, then offer a choice and a chance. Competition and
accountability does that. It does it all across the economy. It does it
in every other phase of our lives. Why we say it won't happen in public
education is just beyond me.
So I commend those who have put this bill forward. I wholeheartedly
support it. I was involved several years ago in crafting the original
one, and I am very pleased to support this today. This will be good for
all kids.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left
on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great excitement. My Republican
colleagues have made a vow to offset new spending, but they found a
cause worthy enough to bypass this promise.
My Republican colleagues have rallied behind the SOAR Act, a $300
million bill without an offset. Reportedly, the goal of the bill is to
give ``all students a shot to win the future'' by ``restoring hope''
and ``building stronger public schools.'' This is truly encouraging as
it matches my goals as well as those of many of my Democratic
colleagues. However, I strongly disagree with the proposed solution.
The $300 million bill will continue the D.C. Opportunities Scholarship
Program, which was ineffective.
Department of Education reports show the voucher program had no
statistically significant impact on overall
[[Page H2071]]
student achievement, aspirations for the future, the frequency of doing
homework, or attendance or tardiness rates. Further, although built on
the premise of choice, voucher schools can and do reject students based
on prior academic achievement, economic background, English language
ability, or disciplinary history, which significantly limits choice.
This $300 million program, which has proven ineffective, is not the
solution for the intended goal. To reach this goal, we can begin by
repealing the H.R. 1 cuts to programs that remove barriers for low-
income students, such as title I programs, Head Start and TRIO.
I urge my colleagues who are truly invested in the goal to reject
these cuts to key education programs and to oppose the SOAR Act.
Earlier, I heard one of the persons on the other side talk about
persons who support vouchers in D.C. Most of the political persons who
support it either were defeated or have left and have no more say.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of talk, and it seems like most of the
talk is about how we are being unfair to the District of Columbia by
giving them money that, in fact, they don't really need. Let me just be
candid. The District of Columbia gets all the other Federal money that
the States get and other cities. This is additional money, but here is
the amazing fact:
Depending upon whose figures you use, for each student in the
District of Columbia, they spend between $17,000 and $28,000 per
student. Cato says $28,000. We'll take the District at $17,000. These
Opportunity Scholarships go between $7,500 and $12,000. I'll agree that
perhaps some of those students would have gone to a parochial or to a
private school otherwise; but for those who leave the public school to
take advantage of this scholarship, they leave all $28,000 behind; and
they leave with $7,500 in opportunity and some parent who cares enough
to find a way to make up the rest if there is additional cost. Many of
the parochial schools mentioned that are high school equivalents of
Georgetown--except they're not getting Pell Grants; they're getting
this grant--in fact, take this as the entire payment.
So the truth is that this is a gift to the District of Columbia in
several ways, and I want it understood here today: when you look at the
ranking of all of the States, if the District of Columbia were a State,
it would be 51st. If you rank it against the top 50 inner cities, it's
still only around 22nd. It is a failed school system with the second
highest amount, by their own figures, per capita spent on students. If
you take Cato's figures, they're far and away the most expensive public
schools anywhere in the country.
Mr. Speaker, we've had a lot of talk about how Republicans are cruel
because we're funding less than the Democrats would like, and we're
actually funding less on this program than they would have. The
difference is they were simply handing $75 million a year for the next
5 years, or at least for this year, to the public schools, with no
strings attached, while, in fact, we are breaking it into three pots of
$20 million in order to allow the public school to get something.
The Speaker, in this bill, believes strongly they should get
something so they're net better off. There is another $20 million so
that children can go to charter schools. Let's understand something. If
you go to the public school, they say you have choice, but the regular
public schools have districts, boundaries. You can't exceed them. Going
to a charter school gives you an opportunity to cross town for the
school of your choice. The last 20, a mere $20 million out of hundreds
of millions of dollars, in fact, goes to these few lottery winners.
The gentleman on the other side of the aisle--and rightfully so--said
it's a lottery. Yet as a former businessman--and I don't call myself a
recovering businessman because I hope to never forget the lessons I
learned in business--if you came to the State of California and said,
We'll give you, whether it was $60 million or $600 million, but you've
got to take a small amount of that and put it out for lotteries, and if
you asked the voters in California would they take it, you'd get the
same 74 to 80 percent absolute approval. If it were absolutely new
money, they would.
{time} 1510
But if you went to a businessman, if you went to somebody who had to
understand how to make a dollar go further, there's no question what
you would find is--let's do the math. I spend between $17,000 and
$28,000 on each student; $7,500 in expanding these Opportunity
Scholarships. If they were to use their own in-district money, for
every time they hand out $7,500, they would leave themselves over
$17,000. It means that every student who remained would have more
dollars.
The fact is, it's a self-inflicted wound for the District of Columbia
not just to take all of this money but to take additional money because
every student who exits is an opportunity to have more for those who
stay, but that's not the way public education thinks. It thinks in
terms of how much do I get per student, how many union teachers do I
make sure I employ, how much union dues do I get.
I'm sorry, but that's not way the rest of America thinks. It's not
the way the Speaker thinks when he crafted a bill that was incredibly
fair to the District of Columbia and fair to many of the students who,
yes, have an opportunity to get these few scholarships; and God help
us, I just wish there were more because they wish there were more.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the majority has been obsessed with
depriving the District of Columbia of its home-rule rights ever since
this Congress opened. They have come now with their choice, their
preference, for the people I represent. If, in fact, the majority is
correct that this program has been so effective, I ask you why you have
not brought a national voucher bill to the floor so that your
constituents could have the very same thing my constituents have? I
know why. It's the height of hypocrisy to put it on us and not bring a
bill to the floor to give the same wonderful, wonderful opportunity to
your own people.
I have a home-rule agenda in the amendment coming up. I challenge
you, I challenge you to bring a national voucher bill to the floor this
session.
Mr. ISSA. I would like to inquire of the minority, do you have
additional speakers at this time?
Mr. CUMMINGS. No, I do not.
Mr. ISSA. Then are you prepared to close?
Mr. CUMMINGS. I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. ISSA. Then I will reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Might I inquire how much time each side has.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. The ranking member said that basically
this is a gift to the District of Columbia, and you know, the chairman
of the committee--and I would appreciate it if he would take into
consideration--while handing the District of Columbia $20 million in
vouchers, H.R. 1, which he voted for, would take from the District of
Columbia now $2.39 million from the D.C.'s title I funding, $500,000
for the funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. This
is just from the District of Columbia; $23.5 million from Pell Grants
so that when these kids get through the system like he just said, they
would be able to have some money to go to school; but H.R. 1 takes away
$845 per year. That's a lot of money for a college student. $5.7
million from Federal supplemental educational opportunity grants, $3.92
million from Head Start programs which would disallow 700 Head Start
students from going to Head Start.
So when you talk about giving a gift, I mean, that's one thing; but
just in Pell Grants alone you've taken away from the very people that
you say you support.
And, you know, let's just be fair about this. Mr. Speaker, this is
about every child. I've said it in committee, and I'll say it again.
There is nobody
[[Page H2072]]
on this side of the aisle who wants more for every child to have an
education and have a good education than we do; and so hopefully this
matter will be resolved, but this is not the way to do it.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You know, there has been a lot of talk about H.R. 1, and I think
that's a bigger picture than what we're looking at here today; but it
should be considered.
Republicans offered on this floor, and passed without the support for
the most part of the other party, a continuing resolution. We have been
responsible in trying to fund the government, and we tried to fund the
government at over 90-some percent of what it would have been funded
had the majority not changed and certainly at or above 2008 levels.
But that bill died in the Senate. Everything seems to have died in
the Senate. And yet it can be demagogued as though we've cut, but you
can't cut what you haven't done and you can't cut what you haven't
offered an alternative for. We cut what was already on the book: $75
million to $60 million.
We did decide, the Speaker's leadership, that we were going to keep
this program which we believe works. At $20 million, it's just a fairly
large pilot program. As one of the speakers on the Democratic side so
aptly said, you have to win the lottery, there aren't enough slots.
You're right, there aren't enough opportunities for the District of
Columbia. But unlike what the gentlelady, the Delegate from the
District of Columbia said, we don't have an authority to go out and do
this as a national referendum; but more importantly, we don't have the
money. This is more a matter of showing the benefit to States which may
or may not choose and giving an opportunity to one of the worst school
systems, most failed school systems in the Nation.
Students in the District of Columbia in math and science and reading
are typically 51st when compared to the 50 States. This is, in fact, a
difficult area if you happen to be a student in this District. If
you're like the President's family or his predecessor or his
predecessor or his predecessor, if they have school-age children, they
don't go to public school. They go to private school. That's pretty
well-known.
But private school offers opportunities and it offers choice; and,
Mr. Speaker, this $20 million per year of special funding for
Opportunity Scholarships is all we're talking about today. One of the
speakers, rightfully so, called it $100 million over 5 years. The
Delegate from the District of Columbia called it $300 million, but she
was forgetting the other $200 million goes right where she wants it to
go. The only thing we're debating is over 5 years will $100 million go
to Opportunity Scholarships that don't basically go to union
schoolteachers that are failing the students in a system that is
failing.
We just lost the head of education here, Ms. Rhee; and, in fact, part
of the reason she left was she saw a new administration that didn't
seem to live up to the high expectations that the previous one did.
That's a local matter. That's local control and local rule. We're not
preempting that. They have a right to fail, and they are failing; but
Congress has a right to at least intervene.
And in closing, what I want the Speaker to understand and America to
understand is in 1996, when chartered public schools were authorized in
the District, it was authorized by my predecessor on the Republican
side, Mr. Davis. He got it in and got it funded, and he got it made law
over the objection at that time of the people of the District. We've
looked through our records and can find no broad support for this
mandate. The District did not do chartered public schools on their own.
They did it with an act of Congress, with help.
I believe they should take the same suggestion. If they want to
choose to disagree with the conservative extreme Washington Post, so be
it, but I think they have to begin to look at themselves more deeply,
at those that they actually represent, those who voted for them but did
not vote to have this money rejected.
I urge strong support for this bill, for this opportunity for the few
who win the lottery.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on
H.R. 471, a bill to make Congress the de-facto School Board for the
District of Columbia. This legislation, introduced without a hint of
irony by self-proclaimed small-government conservatives, would
authorize $60 million in federal taxpayer subsidies for private schools
in the District of Columbia. The same party that just cut $1.2 billion
in Head Start funding for Americans across the country will readily
transfer tax money from all Americans to the District of Columbia.
Moreover, the concern expressed today for District of Columbia students
rings hollow in light of the Republicans' repeal of voting rights of
the Delegate from the District of Columbia, which occurred in the first
vote this session. Thus, this legislation is hypocritical on three
levels, as it represents federal intrusion in local affairs, a federal
spending increase in D.C. in contrast to nationwide education funding
cuts, and disingenuous concern for the welfare of D.C. residents.
Although H.R. 471 is blatantly inconsistent with Republicans' alleged
fealty to fiscal conservativism and federalism, it is quite consistent
with Republicans' ideologically driven efforts to unravel public
education. This bill is not about providing educational alternatives
for students: It is about defunding public schools and gutting
teachers' unions. Does this sound familiar? Middle class Americans are
attempting to survive a similar assault by Republican governors and
state legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio. Ultimately, this bill isn't
even about vouchers, but rather about power. There is not any
compelling data that vouchers work, after all, while there are several
studies suggesting that, at best, they divert resources and talented
students from public schools. But whether vouchers work or not is
irrelevant to the party whose goal is elimination of the public
education system as we know it, for vouchers are just a means to that
end.
Educational policy should put students first rather than sacrifice
them for ideological objectives. H.R. 471 would make District of
Columbia students lab rats in a Republican experiment to gut public
education and replace it with an unproven alternative. H.R. 471 makes a
mockery of Republican commitments to federalism and fiscal
conservativism, even as it belies their callousness to the welfare of
their own constituents.
Finally, my colleagues should be aware that this bill did not pass
out of the Oversight and Reform Committee without controversy.
Congressman Platts of Pennsylvania made what may have been the most
articulate speech in opposition to the bill. He reminded us that even
if vouchers did work--and there's no evidence they do--they would still
abandon the rest of our students. Mr. Platts called on all of us to
work toward an education system that helps all students succeed, and I
would hope that we could identify that as our objective rather than
diverting money from public schools through vouchers.
I urge my colleagues to put students first and vote against H.R. 471.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 471,
the DC voucher bill. I opposed the creation of the DC Voucher Program
when it came before the House in the 108th Congress and I oppose
today's bill that would extend this unsuccessful program. As a mother
and a former educator, I understand the desire and the value of giving
children the best educational opportunities. That is not what this bill
would do.
This program has neither the same accountability standards for
improving student academic achievement as public schools nor do
students in the program have the same civil rights protections as
students in public schools. The U.S. Department of Education (ED)
evaluated the Washington, DC voucher program in both the Bush and Obama
Administrations and issued reports indicating the program was
ineffective and has not lived up to its promises. In its 2010 Final
Report, the ED concluded that the use of a voucher had no statistically
significant impact on overall student achievement in reading and math.
There also is concern that students in the voucher program who have
special needs, including those with learning disabilities and those in
ESL courses, do not have access to programs or resources to address
these needs.
Unlike our nation's public schools, the private schools in the DC
voucher program are not accountable for the public dollars they
receive. In 2007, GAO issued a report on the DC voucher program
documenting concerns with the accountability of the program operator,
questioning whether the operator has sufficient oversight to govern the
use of federal funds. Furthermore, the GAO report found that this
program does not proportionally reach the students it is meant to
target, those from schools in need of improvement. It also raised
concerns that many teachers in the voucher program do not have adequate
educational attainment or certification to teach.
[[Page H2073]]
This bill extends and expands the only federally funded voucher
program in the U.S. At a time when the utmost fiscal responsibility is
needed, and especially when our public schools are facing giant cuts,
we should not be wasting money on programs that do not work and fail
our students. My colleagues who support this bill have neither paid for
the $300 million cost nor have they kept to their own legislative rules
by making the cost offset by cuts to other programs. This voucher
program is clearly not the best use of federal taxpayer dollars and
does not provide the youth of our nation's capital with the best
learning opportunities.
I fully support measures that encourage our children and youth to
rise to new heights. However, this legislation extends a program that
does not do what the title suggests and usurps DC's prerogative of
self-governance. Congress should be focusing on providing the best
educational resources to youth from every part of our nation. I repeat,
that is not what this bill would do. I oppose H.R. 471.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (SOAR Act).
This bipartisan bill, which I am proud to co-sponsor, reauthorizes
the incredibly successful District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship
Program, which provides low-income D.C. children an opportunity to
compete for a scholarship to attend the private school of their choice.
Last year, after half a decade of increased graduation rates and
opportunities for a better life, the current Administration
unilaterally rescinded the Opportunity Scholarships that had been
promised to 216 children. This is unacceptable. The SOAR Act renews the
Opportunity Scholarship Program to again provide low-income children
and their parents the opportunity to choose what educational
environment suits them best.
Additionally, in recognition that not every child will be able to
earn an Opportunity Scholarship, the SOAR Act also invests equally into
the D.C. public and charter school systems. For far too long, the D.C.
public school system has under-promised and under-performed, leaving
children's educational future dependent on their zip code. Giving
students and their parents the opportunity to choose what learning
environment is best--whether it is a private, charter, or public
school--should be the standard, not the exception.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the SOAR Act because it takes
an all of the above approach to improving educational opportunities for
low-income children in our Nation's capital.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 471. This bill
provides $300 million in unfunded appropriations at a time when the
same leadership that is advancing this bill has told us that cuts to
education programs, like Head Start and Pell grants, that affect
students around the country, are a fiscal necessity.
The Majority is pushing an ideological agenda designed to satisfy
their base framed as an effort to improve the lives of children in the
District.
While Congress retains an oversight role over the District of
Columbia, D.C. should not be treated as a petri dish for conservative
ideas that are opposed by the voters in the District.
There have been two major studies of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
program.
The first found ``no conclusive evidence'' that the vouchers program
affected student achievement.
The second found that while math scores did not improve, there was a
modest improvement in reading. Unfortunately, those gains occurred
strictly for those students who came from the least troubled D.C.
schools and scored the highest on the baseline test.
Unfortunately, this program has failed to help those who need it the
most.
Critically, the gains in student achievement witnessed in the
vouchers program do not match those achieved by the District's charter
schools. If this body is truly interested in supporting effective
school choice and education reform in D.C., we should focus on funding
to reduce long waiting lists for the best charter schools.
Congresswoman Norton, the only Member of this House democratically
accountable to the parents and students of the District, has offered a
substitute amendment which would divide the funding equally between
DCPS and the city's charter schools. I will support the substitute.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 471, a
bill that would resurrect the failed District of Columbia school
voucher program. This legislation is nothing more than a pet project of
the Republican majority that has not proven successful for students or
popular with the American people. This is the same majority that just
last month voted to cut $5 billion in education funding, potentially
hurting students all across this country. Now they want to spend $300
million on a program that serves only a handful of students, and
doesn't even serve those few students well.
Evaluations of the former D.C. voucher program by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Education found no
statistically significant effects on student achievement. GAO also
found that the program was poorly managed, concluding that,
``accountability and internal control were inadequate.'' Subsidizing
private schools undermines public education in the District of Columbia
by shifting resources to private and religious schools, rather than
working on ideas for real reform in our public schools.
This bill also violates the District's right to home rule by using
its school systems for a federally funded social experiment. As a
former chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, I am well
aware of the long struggle the District has waged for self-
determination and a voting member of Congress. Unfortunately, instead
of moving legislation to enfranchise the people of the District, we are
voting today to impose more ideological mandates on the city.
Public opinion is not in favor of taxpayer-funded school voucher
programs. They consistently fail when they are brought up in state
referendums. A majority of Americans do not approve of the idea under
any circumstances, and as many as 70 percent are against vouchers if
they take money away from public schools.
Vouchers don't work, they hurt public schools, and Americans do not
support them. I urge all of my colleagues to stand with the District of
Columbia and oppose this legislation.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me start out by thanking the members of
the Oversight & Government Reform Committee for their work on this
bill. Thank you also to our 50 cosponsors and all the members on both
sides who are standing with us today. I appreciate the efforts of our
colleagues in the Senate--particularly Joe Lieberman--who are working
on similar legislation.
Today, the House will have the opportunity to do something special
for the future of our country. I think just about every member would
agree we have work to do when it comes to our education system.
Americans are concerned that their children won't come to know the
same blessings they have. And if we want to protect the American Dream,
there's no substitute for a quality education.
My view's always been, education reform starts with giving children
in need a way out of our most underachieving public schools. Of course,
that doesn't mean we abandon those schools. It means we take some of
the pressure off of them while they work to turn themselves around.
So we came together here about seven years ago and said, let's try
something different. Instead of just throwing more money at the
problem, let's empower parents from lower-income families to choose the
schools that are best for their children. We wouldn't deny any school
money they would already be receiving--we would just be injecting
freedom and competition into a system caught up in the status quo.
We had a strong bipartisan coalition, including: Anthony Williams,
our mayor here at the time; and Dick Armey, who for years led this
fight in the House, paving the way for this program. We started working
together on school choice in the early 1990s when we served on the Ed &
Labor Committee.
We said, let's give these kids in our capital city a real chance at
success and a real shot at the American Dream that they do not have.
What do we have to be afraid of? Nothing, as it turned out. Thousands
of families have taken advantage of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program. There's strong evidence that it has been both effective and
cost-effective.
Unfortunately, the education establishment in our country sees the
Opportunity Scholarship Program as a threat. In reality, this is an
opportunity to raise the bar. Competition makes everyone better.
I think if you look beyond the talking points and focus on the facts,
you'll find that the D.C. program provides a model that can work well
in other communities around the nation.
Now, this issue is important to me--but it's not about me. I'm proud
to say I've supported the Opportunity Scholarship Program from the get-
go, but I'm even more proud of the fact I had nothing to do with its
success. For that, we can thank the students and the parents who have
become more than just the program's beneficiaries--they are its
greatest ambassadors.
In recent days, I've received letters from many of them asking their
Congress to do the right thing, I'll be submitting some of those for
the record.
You see, they know what it was like before. They remember living just
blocks from these great schools, but feeling miles away from them. All
they ask us to do is help ensure others get the same chance they've
had. That's
[[Page H2074]]
no controversial idea--it's just the American way.
So if we're serious about bipartisan education reform, we should
start by saving this successful, bipartisan program that has helped so
many underprivileged children get a quality education.
I urge the House to support this measure to save and renew the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, I am writing to thank you for never
giving up in your fight to restore the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program.
As a mother who has seen the benefits of the program first-
hand, I can attest to the value of this program. Nico, my
nine year old son attends Naylor Road Private School on an
opportunity scholarship and is excelling in his small
classes. If Nico were unable to attend Naylor Road, he would
have been forced to attend a failing, underperforming school.
I can also attest to the heartbreak of having my daughter's
scholarship revoked by President Obama's Secretary of
Education. My daughter Nia received an opportunity
scholarship in 2009 to attend the same school as her brother
and receive the same educational opportunities. But that is
no longer the case.
My daughter was one of 216 students who received a letter
from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan retracting her
scholarship. Suddenly, I did not know where I was going to
send my daughter to school. I know that I will not send my
daughter to any of the schools in my area. While I have been
blessed by emergency, private scholarships to send Nia to
Naylor Road with her brother, I do not know if this support
will continue.
As a single mother on disability, I am unable to work
enough to afford tuition. Education is the first priority in
my household, and this program allows my children to attend
safe schools and thrive.
I can tell you that your work, and that of so many other
Members of Congress, has not gone unnoticed in the parts of
our city that many people too often ignore.
For me, it will mean a quality education for my children.
It will also mean peace of mind, because I will know that my
children will not, one day, be separated--my son to attend a
safe and nurturing school, and my daughter, forced elsewhere.
Please keep fighting for this program. Please. And I
encourage all Members of Congress to follow your lead in
voting YES for the SOAR Act. I know that with the chance to
thrive in better schools, my children will truly SOAR!
Sincerely,
LaTasha Bennett.
____
March 29, 2011.
Dear Speaker Boehner, I want to thank you for spending so
much time and energy on a cause that does not benefit you but
helps me and a lot other DC children.
I was a lucky one. I had the opportunity to be a scholar
and it worked! I was accepted into Archbishop Carroll and
Bishop McNamara High School. Pm proud of my success. One day
I would like to attend Spellman College. When I get to
college I know it will be because of the solid foundation I
received in my elementary school. The foundation for my
future was possible because of my scholarship.
Again, thank you for fighting to save the Opportunity
Scholarship. I know you care about us and I wish you a lot of
good luck!
Sincerely,
Samaya Mack,
8th grade, St. Anthony Catholic School.
____
March 29, 2011.
Dear Mr. Speaker, My name is Katherine Campos and I am a
recipient of the Opportunity Scholarship. I am an eighth
grader at Sacred Heart School and have received the
scholarship for the past six years.
I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for
introducing the SOAR Act to Congress. I know that you really
believe in the Opportunity Scholarship and that means the
world to me. I believe in the scholarship, too.
The scholarship has offered me an escape from some of the
harsher realities of the city. It has offered me a chance to
grow in my spirituality and academics because it allowed my
mom to choose Sacred Heart for me. My family is happy now
that I have a better chance of getting into a good high
school. Without the scholarship, I wouldn't be where I am
today and I wouldn't have as much hope for tomorrow. I know
that I am better prepared for a successful future because I
am a recipient of the Opportunity Scholarship.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for all that you are doing to help
me and all the other scholarship recipients. You really do
make a difference in my world.
Sincerely,
Katherine Campos,
8th grade, Sacred Heart School.
____
March 29, 2011.
Dear Mr. Speaker, we met for the first time at the State of
the Union. Remember you gave me advice on giving interviews?
Since then a lot of people have asked me about OSP and I just
wanted to say thank you, Mr. Speaker, for all of the hard
work you're putting into bringing back this Program. This
program has helped me and a lot of other DC children.
Without this program I would not have attended St. Anthony
Catholic School and probably would not have achieved the
success I have. I love my school and am glad my parents had
the option to send me here.
Since we met I am proud to share that I earned a full four
year academic scholarship to Gonzaga and will be going there
in the fall. This high school scholarship was possible
because the elementary school that my parents chose for me
provided me with a strong academic foundation. I know I will
do well in high school. And then, I plan to do well at Ohio
State University for college.
I hope the SOAR Act passes so other kids will get the
chance I did. Thank you again!
Sincerely,
Obi Mbanefo,
8th grade, St. Anthony Catholic School.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 471.
Today's vote comes just weeks after House Republicans brought a
Continuing Resolution to the floor to slash billions from public
education programs--legislation that would cut Head Start slots, reduce
critical support to thousands of schools, and decrease afterschool
services at high-poverty and low-performing schools. My colleagues
across the aisle argued that we simply cannot afford these investments
in our nation's children.
But today, the Majority brings to the floor a bill to provide private
school vouchers in the District of Columbia. This bill adds $300
million to the deficit, a violation of their own new ``Cut-Go'' rule
that requires offsets for all new spending.
Mr. Speaker, I support investments in education. We all want our
children to have the opportunity to succeed. But we should be using
public funds to improve our public schools first. And it is totally
hypocritical to have a vote one month to cut public school funding
under the guise of deficit reduction and vote the next month to
increase the deficit to support some schools over all others. I urge my
colleagues oppose this bill.
Mr. ISSA. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Ms. Norton
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Public Funds for Public
Education Act''.
SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DC PUBLIC CHARTER
SCHOOLS.
(a) General Authority.--From the funds appropriated under
section 4, the Secretary of Education (in this Act referred
to as the ``Secretary'') shall provide funds to the Mayor of
the District of Columbia (in this Act referred to as the
``Mayor''), if the Mayor agrees to the requirements described
in subsection (b), for--
(1) the District of Columbia public schools to improve
public education in the District of Columbia; and
(2) the District of Columbia public charter schools to
improve and expand quality public charter schools in the
District of Columbia.
(b) Condition of Receipt of Funds.--As a condition of
receiving funds under this Act on behalf of the District of
Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public
charter schools, the Mayor shall agree to carry out the
following:
(1) Agreement with the secretary.--Enter into an agreement
with the Secretary 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 Act.
(2) Information requests.--Ensure that all District of
Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public
charter schools comply with all reasonable requests for
information for purposes of the evaluation described in
paragraph (1).
(3) Submission of report.--Not later than 6 months after
the first appropriation of funds under section 4, and each
succeeding year thereafter, submit to the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions, and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, information on--
(A) how the funds authorized and appropriated under this
Act for the District of Columbia public schools and the
District of Columbia public charter schools were used in the
preceding school year; and
(B) how such funds are contributing to student achievement.
(4) Public availability.--Ensure that all reports and
underlying data gathered pursuant to this subsection shall be
made available to the public upon request, in a timely
[[Page H2075]]
manner following submission of the applicable report under
paragraph (3), except that personally identifiable
information shall not be disclosed or made available to the
public.
(c) Enforcement.--If, after reasonable notice and an
opportunity for a hearing for the Mayor, the Secretary
determines that the Mayor has not been in compliance with 1
or more of the requirements described in subsection (b), the
Secretary may withhold from the Mayor, in whole or in part,
further funds under this Act for the District of Columbia
public schools and the District of Columbia public charter
schools.
SEC. 3. PRIORITY CONSIDERATION FOR CERTAIN STUDENTS.
Each District of Columbia public charter school, in
selecting new students for admission to the school, shall
give priority to students who were provided notification of
selection for an opportunity scholarship under the DC School
Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 38-1851.01 et seq., D.C.
Official Code) for the 2009-2010 school year, but whose
scholarship was later rescinded in accordance with direction
from the Secretary of Education.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $60,000,000 for
fiscal year 2012 and each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years,
of which--
(1) 50 percent shall be made available to carry out
paragraph (1) of section 2(a) for each fiscal year; and
(2) 50 percent shall be made available to carry out
paragraph (2) of section 2(a) for each fiscal year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 186, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and a Member
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
{time} 1520
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to correct the
gentleman from California. The District charter school bill was created
by Speaker Gingrich in partnership with me. He came to me and proposed
a voucher bill. I asked him, since the District had a local charter
school bill, if he would introduce, instead, a charter school law. We
consulted with the local public officials, with the school board, with
citizens. It was the home rule alternative to vouchers, and you can
check with Speaker Gingrich.
Now, my home rule substitute would redirect the $300 million in H.R.
471, 50 percent to the District public charter schools, 50 percent to
the District of Columbia Public Schools. If the majority wants to add
$300 million to the deficit without an offset, then let it at least be
on the basis of educational merit; then it should be added to the
public schools which have shown major growth, the only public school
system of the 18 largest urban school systems that showed significant
improvements in math and reading over the last 2 years.
If you want to add to the deficit, then at least add to it by giving
money to our public charter schools which outdo the D.C. public schools
and way outdo, of course, the voucher schools, which show no
improvement. The public charter middle and high schools scored twice as
high as the traditional public charter schools in the District in math
and reading, and they have a graduation rate 24 percent above the D.C.
public schools and 8 percent above the national average. This is where
you would give the money if you had any interest in education in the
District of Columbia instead of your own parochial interests in making
the District a petri dish of the pet project of a few Members of
Congress. You would look at our public charter schools as the
alternative to the District's public schools.
There are 53 campuses, amounting to almost 100 different charter
schools, almost half of the children of the District of Columbia. How
did they get there? They voted with their feet. I mean, listen to some
of the names of these schools: Washington Latin School; Washington
Math, Science, and Technology High School. I have, myself, appointed
two students from Washington Math, Science, and Technology to Service
Academies. Early Childhood Academy; Hospitality Academy; Howard
University Middle School--that's a charter school; the KIPP Schools.
We've got eight of them. Those are the top charter schools and some of
the best public charter schools in the United States. SEED Residential
charter school. You have some money? You want to spend some money? Here
is the place to spend it.
To show you just what kind of a home rule alternative this is, with
almost 100 different schools, they have got 19 new charter school
applications coming for 2012. People keep coming despite the
improvements in the District public schools. They are going to have a
preschool charter. They are going to have three new high schools: one
an all male college prep, one that focuses on public service, another
that focuses on math and science.
You want to talk choices, you want to talk creative choices, look at
the District of Columbia. We know how to create choices for ourselves,
choices that our parents want, choices that our parents create and pay
for because they want their own choices, not the choices of the
Republicans of the House of Representatives. In a democracy, the
choices of a self-governing local jurisdiction trump all other choices,
and especially the choices of Members who are not responsible to the
people of the District of Columbia, who do not have to stand for
election in the District of Columbia but get a free ride, as I do not.
If you insist on adding to the deficit, then, for goodness sake,
reinforce the home rule, hard work of our own parents and our own local
organizations. Commend them for the dazzling array of almost 100
public, accountable charter schools they have created. Relieve their
long waiting lists, which now contain thousands of students waiting to
get into our charter schools.
The District of Columbia did not appreciate being an unwilling object
of a Republican experiment once. With your cavalier defiance of our
choices, we like it much less the second time around.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 20 minutes.
Mr. ISSA. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the subcommittee chairman who has worked so
hard on this issue and who truly does understand the gentlelady's
passion, if not her accuracy.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, again I would like to thank the chairman of
the full committee, the gentleman from California, for his leadership.
It is instructive, it is informative, not to mention ironic, that
there were opponents to the D.C. charter school system, just like there
is resistance to the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Indeed, Mr.
Speaker, some of the very same people who rise today in opposition to
the Opportunity Scholarship Program, lauding the virtues of the D.C.
charter school system, once opposed that very charter school system.
The charter school system is a success--I will acknowledge that--just
like the Opportunity Scholarship Program is a success. They are both
successful because the parents in the District of Columbia want choice.
I hate to be redundant. I don't want to beat a dead horse, although
it does not hurt the horse to return to the evidence. And the evidence
proves beyond a reasonable doubt by any reasonable, statistical
measurement: the parents want this program; the students want this
program; the community wants this program; even some elected officials
want this program. They just happen to not be ones we have heard from
on the other side of the aisle today.
Reading scores are up. Educational attainment is up. Graduation rates
are up. And it bears repeating again. There is a myriad of maladies
that are connected to the dropout rate in this country. And if all we
do is to get kids to graduate, it is worth it for this program alone if
they just get kids to graduate.
Opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker--and make no mistake about this.
Opposition to this bill is political and not factual. I will say that
because 18-year-olds in the District of Columbia can take Federal
dollars and they can go to Notre Dame and BYU, and they can go to
Stanford and they can go to Baylor and they can go to Rice. So why do
we oppose Federal dollars helping 17-year-olds? Let that point sink in.
So 18-year-olds can take Federal dollars and go to whatever private
school they want to, but 17-year-olds cannot take private dollars to go
to whatever high school they want to. And I defy anyone to explain to
me that distinction.
My colleague from the District of Columbia is a passionate, zealous
advocate for her constituents, and I commend her for that. I genuinely
commend her for her passion and her zeal
[[Page H2076]]
in representing her constituents. But even her passion is no match for
the passion of parents who hope for a better future for their children.
Even her passion cannot match the passion of the parents who came to
testify before our subcommittee that this is a lifeline. This is a
once-in-a-generation opportunity. And for us to say ``no'' to the
Opportunity Scholarship Program because of pure, raw, gutter politics
is wrong.
{time} 1530
I would oppose this amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to
support the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, let me say this: The last speaker said
something that I found very offensive when he said it's about raw,
gutter politics. I personally resent that, and the reason why I resent
it is because it sends the wrong message on this floor.
We can have disagreements, but this is not about raw, gutter
politics. This is about standing up for every child. I've said it over
and over and over again. And I, as a product of public schools, and my
children who have gone to charter schools and public schools, and I've
sat on a charter school board, and living in an area in Baltimore where
``The Wire'' is filmed, I can tell you that this is not about raw,
gutter politics. This is about the politics of lifting children up so
that they can be the best that they can be. That's what this is all
about.
And I've said it in committee and I'll say it over and over again:
There is not one Member on this side who does not care about every
single child. And when we talk about this program, this voucher
program, one of the things that we need to consider is we're talking
about right now about 1,012 kids. We're also talking about a charter
school program with over 27,000 and counting. And it affects a lot more
people. What we're trying to do is help as many kids as possible.
You talk about the graduation rates. The graduation rates for the
charter schools are better than this voucher program graduation rates.
And so what do we try to do?
We need to be trying to address things in the most effective and
efficient manner. And so it's easy to talk about gutter politics. But
what we're talking about is trying to help every child.
Now, you talked also about how we can take this money, children can
take this money, when they get to college and go to various places,
colleges; and you're right. But the fact is that you just voted in H.R.
1 to slash $845 per year. And I see students every year, the board I
sit on, the college board in Baltimore where kids, for $845, that $845
would cause kids not to be able to attend college, period. So it's nice
to lift them up.
First of all, we don't give them, we cut off money from the Head
Start so they can't get the Head Start. We want children to even get to
the point of being able to be in a position to go to high school. But
then after they get out of high school--and it is not about gutter
politics--after they get out of high school, we want to make sure that
they're able to have the necessary funding to go forward. And so I
don't consider what the other side is saying one bit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield the gentleman another minute.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me be clear. I do not consider it gutter politics
for the other side to argue what it's arguing. I believe there are
philosophical differences, and that's okay. And we will differ. And I
have never, not once, and I don't think anybody on this side has not
once, said that we don't all want to lift our children up. That's what
America's all about. That's how we became the great country that we
are. For every child.
And again I say it: The worst thing, the greatest threat to our
national security is our failure to properly educate every single one
of our children. Leave no child behind.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, what are they afraid of? What are
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, afraid of?
Let me second my colleague from South Carolina, respectfully. It is
about raw, gutter politics. Respectfully, my colleague from Maryland
talks about standing up for every child, helping every child.
What are they afraid of? Why won't they help every single child?
And it is politics. My colleagues on the other side can dance around
any rationale they want to dance around. The evidence on this issue,
we're beyond it. We are beyond having to debate empowering parents.
We're past that.
So what, respectfully, on the other side of the aisle, is causing my
colleagues to be against empowering--and I'll emphasize the word
``every''--every parent?
Ms. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Respectfully, no.
My colleague from South Carolina respectfully said raw, gutter
politics because my colleagues on the other side are scared to death of
offending the teachers' unions.
And ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Speaker, the teachers' unions are
scared to death of this scholarship program because, look out, if this
scholarship program demonstrates success, and it has, it will be
modeled all over the country, and that, respectfully, is what scares
the teachers' unions, because they don't want kids to be able to
escape.
And my colleagues on the other side will answer to what they want.
That's the politics that we're talking about.
We're talking about power. The power should go to the parent, plain
and simple, every parent. Charter school, public school, home school,
private school, you name it. That's where the power should lie.
Ms. NORTON. How much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
California has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. To the gentleman who didn't have the nerve to yield to
me, this bill, of course----
Point of Order
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
The gentleman will kindly state his point of order.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that the House rules prohibit
direct accusations about the intent or the personal features of
somebody or, in fact, whether or not they have nerve?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not going to respond to a
hypothetical question.
Mr. ISSA. And I am not going to take down the gentlelady's words
because it is too short a period of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized.
Ms. NORTON. The speaker before the last speaker wanted to know what
the offense was. The offense is to the home-rule prerogative to the
people of the District of Columbia to decide on educational choices for
their own children. That's what the offense is.
Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. One of the previous speakers said that he wanted to
empower the parents of the District of Columbia. I agree. I think we
should empower the parents of the District of Columbia to elect a
representative who has a vote in this Chamber. Why don't we start with
that?
The irony of the proposition that this bill is allegedly about
empowerment of adults in the District of Columbia and their children
comes from people who, I assume, would resist the notion that the
representative of the District of Columbia should have a vote in this
Chamber.
And let me bring up some very recent history. Under our majority,
votes in the Committee of the Whole were, in fact, accorded to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. On the first day of the new
majority, it repealed her right and the rights of others from the
territories to vote on matters in the Committee of the Whole.
[[Page H2077]]
{time} 1540
There is one issue in this bill: Taxation without representation is
tyranny. Decisionmaking without representation is wrong. The duly-
elected representative of the people of the District of Columbia
supports this amendment and opposes this bill. So do I for that reason.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow we should consider a bill
reorganizing the public schools of Cincinnati, Ohio, because we have
just about as much prerogative to do that as we do this.
Support the amendment. Defeat the underlying bill.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, we should bear in mind that home rule is not
the right of the District of Columbia to rule people's private homes
and how they make their choices for their children.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, the Scholarship
Opportunity and Results Act, and against the Norton amendment.
Coming from South Carolina, for 8 years in the general assembly, we
debated the positive benefits of school choice. I have heard every
argument. But what I have seen prior to 2009 is that here, in D.C.,
school choice was a model for the Nation as a very successful program.
We have seen the positive impact of injecting free market principles
into the education system here in Washington, D.C. We have seen
thousands of students' lives changed. We have seen them line up for a
chance at a better life because they could escape a failing school and
have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
Because all students learn differently, it is imperative that we
empower parents. And that is what it is about, empowering parents to
make choices for the education of their children; give them the ability
to choose the best educational experience for their child, whether it
is public, charter, private, or home school.
Neither the State nor the Federal Government knows what is best for
our children. We do as parents. Parents know what is best for their
children, and parents and teachers should have the freedom to work
together to find and create motivating learning environments that are
necessary for every child to succeed.
This bill restores to the parents the ability to make the right
choices that this administration and the previous Congress stripped
away, and it provides an escape from the failed bureaucratic system of
the District of Columbia.
Without question, when students are placed in a learning environment
that best fits their individual needs, our educational system will
become exceptional. This bill brings more transparency and
accountability to the program, raises the scholarship amounts for both
elementary school and high school students, as my colleague from South
Carolina said, and caps the administrative costs. This bill takes a
successful program and makes it even better, and does so without
spending new taxpayer dollars or growing the size of government. In
fact, school choice saves the government money while providing a better
education for the children.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that other States will follow suit. Even
as parental school choice is working for American students and families
in Washington, D.C., we have also seen its effectiveness in States like
Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Florida,
where the achievement gap between white students and minorities is
disappearing. My home State of South Carolina is debating school choice
right now in their legislative session, creating a bill that would
expand educational choice opportunities for all children across my home
State. And I urge my fellow colleagues in South Carolina to get the job
done and pass that legislation.
Let me thank the Speaker of the House for introducing this bill. I
thank him for his leadership of parental choice on behalf of
Washington, D.C.'s families and students who demand effective schools.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Norton amendment and
``yes'' on the SOAR Act.
Ms. NORTON. The gentleman cited a number of schools that he said
vouchers had helped. There is no data showing that voucher schools--and
there have been a few in the United States--have ever scored better
than children in public schools. And since Milwaukee was mentioned, let
me indicate some news that just came out Tuesday.
Results from the first administration of Statewide exams for students
participating in the Milwaukee voucher program showed lower academic
achievement than students attending Milwaukee public schools. The
results also show that the Milwaukee public schools and voucher schools
have significant lower achievement than the Statewide average.
But here, you have a big city public school system that is doing
better than the voucher schools. And that is what the data shows all
over the United States, including the District of Columbia, where the
Bush Department of Education specifically found that the children in
voucher schools did not show significant improvement in math and
reading scores. While I have shown details here this afternoon of
significant improvement of the D.C. public schools, the only urban
school system that has in fact shown significant improvement in math
and science, and particularly dazzling results in the D.C. charter
schools.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to my
distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and for
his leadership on this issue, which is near and dear to my heart, as it
is to the hearts of thousands upon thousands of families in the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to the Norton funding
amendment. The gentlewoman and I have worked together on occasion on
issues, and I know her devotion to the District of Columbia. But we
will just have to respectfully disagree on this issue, because I simply
believe that the Scholarships for Opportunities and Results Act
represents the continuation of one of the most important programs that
I have had the privilege of being a part of here in Washington, D.C.
Now, there is a suggestion that this legislation takes money away
from the public schools. But I think, as we have heard in this debate,
because of the three-sector approach created by the original
authorizing legislation, District public schools and public charter
schools have received over one-quarter of $1 billion in additional
direct Federal payments since 2004. Both DCPS and the charter schools
will continue to receive increased Federal dollars under this
legislation.
So the old arguments against giving students and parents more choices
because it denies funding to public schools don't even attach here on
the facts.
But beyond that, let me say the reason why I felt the need to come to
the floor today. The reason why I so respect Speaker John Boehner's
leadership on this issue is because of meetings that I have had in my
office with oftentimes the teary-eyed parents of children in the
District of Columbia.
I will just never forget last year meeting with moms and dads from
the District of Columbia, most of them from the minority community, who
came to me with tears in their eyes and said, ``I have one child that
is in a private school. I was able to take advantage of the D.C.
scholarship. But because this administration and the last Congress
terminated it, I cannot give that other opportunity to their younger
brother or sister.'' And they literally came to me--at that time I was
in a leadership position in the Republican majority--and they said,
``Please do something about this.'' And my heart went out to those
families.
We had an election, and now we find ourselves in a renewed Republican
majority. And the Speaker of the House of Representatives today is a
man who probably has a larger heart for kids as a former chairman of
the Education Committee than maybe any other former Speaker in the
history of this institution.
{time} 1550
So we find ourselves at this moment when I can say with no small
amount of emotion, I can say to those families,
[[Page H2078]]
yes, we are going to put the scholarship back. We are going to say to
the rest of your children that they deserve the best choice for their
education future as well.
It is a noble moment for this Congress. The Old Book tells us that
whatever you do for the least of these, that you do for Him. I think
this is one of those moments where we look at families that are
struggling under the weight of some of the most beleaguered public
schools in America and we are putting our arms around those families
and saying, we are going to give you more choices. We are going to let
you as parents, regardless of your race or income or status in society,
we are going to give you the opportunity to make the same choice for a
private school and a public school and a charter school as Americans
that have the means to do so can make.
Let me also say I see this debate over educational choice, whether it
is in the District of Columbia or in my own beloved Indiana, as all
tied up in the debate over education reform that has been manifest
throughout this country over the last half century and more. I mean,
there was a day almost in my lifetime, just on the periphery of my
lifetime, when some stood in the schoolhouse door and said, You may not
come in.
But we fixed that as a nation. And now there are some in the massive
education establishment in this country who stand in the schoolhouse
door and say, You may not come out. You may not have the same choices
that other Americans have, simply because of your means and your
condition in life.
The Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act levels the playing
field.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. PENCE. The SOAR Act opens the schoolhouse door. It reopens the
door for opportunities for these families and for their children in the
District of Columbia. And I believe it was before a model for the
Nation, and it can be so again.
So I encourage my colleagues to join me in respectfully opposing the
Norton funding amendment but vigorously supporting H.R. 471. Let's
stand with those families. Let's put joy in their hearts. Let's create
a boundless future for their children. Let's pass the Scholarships for
Opportunity and Results Act.
Ms. NORTON. I respect my good friend, but I have got to stand for and
with the people I represent. And if the gentleman wants to put the joy
in the hearts of my parents, I challenge him to put joy in the hearts
of the parents of his beloved Indiana, as he says, by bringing a
national vouchers bill to the floor so that some of them may have the
choice that we have not asked for.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the
ranking member of our committee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to our last speaker talk
about teary-eyed parents, well, guess what: I see teary-eyed parents
who want to put their kids in Head Start. I just saw them last week at
a town hall meeting. H.R. 1 slashes over $1 billion from Head Start.
They are in tears, too.
In my district, by the way, a total of 20,000 kids will not get Pell
Grants or get $1,000 slashed per year from Pell Grants. They are in
tears, too. Do you know why? Because they will drop out of school and
many of them will never return to school because they don't have the
money. They are in tears, too.
I believe with all my heart that the Speaker's intentions are good.
You won't hear me say anything opposite of that. But, again, I am
trying to figure out how do we take the dollars that we have and spend
them in the most effective and efficient manner.
When we talk about the least of these, I really want to see kids get
that head start that I am talking about; and, for the life of me, maybe
I am missing something, I don't see how on the one hand we talk about
these children that we love, how we want to embrace them and how we
want to embrace their parents and bring joy to their hearts, but then
take away the very money that would allow them to be able to get to
where they have got to go.
So you are right that there was a time when people could not get in
that schoolhouse door all over this country. My parents, they would be
walking to school for 4 miles and other kids would come riding the bus
spitting on them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And they were unable to get an education.
Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is let's embrace all of our kids. I
want for my colleagues' kids, Mr. Speaker, the same thing I would want
for mine. This program affects about 1,000 kids. Well, just in charter
schools, there are over 27,000 in the District.
So I would just support the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, maybe we should lighten up just a little here. Yogi
Berra apparently said, ``Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded,''
when referring to a restaurant that had long lines to get in. Mr.
Speaker, we are finding a way to say a program isn't good because it
has long lines waiting to get in. And, oddly enough, when it comes to
the charter public schools that have been lauded on a wide basis here,
they too have no free rights to automatically go and they have lines.
Perhaps what we should be asking is, on a bipartisan basis: What could
we do to reduce the lines to both to provide that opportunity to all
the children in the District of Columbia?
I will say one thing in maybe a Yogi Berra-type way. If the Democrats
will come halfway to the center of the aisle to talk about how we can
hit a reasonable number for spending, I will put everything on the
table, at least as to my vote, to meet them the other half. But we
can't simply say all cuts are bad and have no alternatives, all
programs are so needy they can't be cut, and then complain even when we
preserve a program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the residents of the District of Columbia
see a pattern here. The majority begins by taking away my vote in the
Committee of the Whole so I can't vote on any part of this bill this
afternoon, then they take away or try to take away the needle exchange
program that keeps HIV-AIDS from being spread throughout the District
of Columbia. Then they are also trying to take away the choice of low-
income women in the District in two bills, the reproductive choice of
low-income women in two bills: H.R. 1 and H.R. 3.
They have introduced a bill to put their version of gun laws on the
District of Columbia, although the courts have found our new gun laws
to be constitutional. This morning we hear that they are coming forward
yet again with more to do to the District of Columbia by trying to
erase our marriage equality law.
Now they say, after taking all of that from you, we have got
something for you, something you never asked for, vouchers, instead of
funding your own home rule choice, your public charter schools.
Yes, we know you fund the charter schools as well; but you then fund
your choice, not ours. My amendment says if you want to fund something,
ask us. Fund what we want, not what you want. And if you want vouchers,
bring a national voucher bill right to the floor.
{time} 1600
I can understand Republicans voting against my substitute. They will
argue perhaps that it adds to the deficit. But if you vote against my
substitute, then I don't see how you can vote for H.R. 471, because it
certainly adds to the deficit, too; and you will be voting for your
choice, not ours.
Many of you have come to the House under the banner of liberty, to
get the Federal Government out of even Federal matters. Now you're
trying to get into a purely local matter involving our children and our
local schools. If this were your district, you would ask us to defer to
you. I'm asking you to defer to our preferences. The District of
Columbia asks to be treated exactly as you would want to be treated--as
free and equal citizens of the United States of America and not as
second-class citizens, not as children, and certainly not as the
colonial subjects of the Congress of the United States.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members to direct
their comments to the Chair.
[[Page H2079]]
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we won't fund failure from this
side of the dais. Yes, we're giving additional money to the failed
public schools. Yes, we're giving additional money to a chartered
public school system that tries valiantly to help those children
trapped in those failed public schools. And, yes, we are going to make
a continued small investment in children having an opportunity to find
other alternatives, just as we do when children a little older get to
go to Georgetown or Catholic University with Pell Grants that in fact
go to these parochial colleges.
Elections have consequences. The majority a year ago had planned on
simply giving it all to union schools, to government schools, because
the party of government was in charge. Mr. Speaker, the election made a
difference. We consider ourselves--and we try valiantly on this side of
the aisle--to be the party of the people. And we believe that the small
amount of money to empower people and parents to do something they
choose, and they stand in lines--in lotteries, as the other side has
said--to escape those schools and to have an opportunity for these
scholarships, we believe they have spoken loud and clear.
And although the Delegate will talk about elections and home rule,
she ignores those long lines to get out of failed public schools. She
ignores the hearings we had in which people came and said, Please don't
take our scholarships. And, Mr. Speaker, she even ignores her own
party, and she ignores what is in her own amendment.
Mr. Speaker, her amendment would leave 216 special cases that were
denied still in for this year. Her amendment would leave in, the same
as the Democrats did when they closed out the previous bill, it would
leave those already in school in private schools getting additional
funding every year. And there's a reason. President Obama's children
were not going to watch their schoolmates be thrown out because a
successful program that allowed them to be side by side as peers rather
than relegated to a failed school was going to be stopped.
So all we're doing is keeping a program of hope alive for the
District of Columbia. And I have never been so insulted to be told that
if we give money, we're bad; and if we don't give money every place the
other side wants it, we're bad. We're trying to give the best we can to
parental choice to failed school districts.
With that, I urge the defeat of this amendment, that does nothing but
retain the public school status quo that has failed, and the passage of
the underlying bill.
Mr. ISSA. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185,
nays 237, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 202]
YEAS--185
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NAYS--237
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Barton (TX)
Campbell
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Pascrell
Pingree (ME)
Shuler
{time} 1629
Messrs. SCHWEIKERT, RENACCI, COFFMAN of Colorado, YOUNG of Florida,
and FORBES changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, RANGEL, GRIJALVA,
ALTMIRE, DOLD, and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Point of Order
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against
consideration of this bill because the legislation violates clause 10
of rule XXI which states
[[Page H2080]]
that it is not in order to consider a bill if it has the effect of
increasing spending for the current year and a 5-year window. CBO
estimates this bill will cost $500 million over 5 years without an
offset in the bill.
{time} 1630
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, ``We are setting PAYGO aside and
instituting Cut-As-You-Go, which means if there is any spending called
for in any new way or authorization, that there has to be some cutting
somewhere.'' Eric Cantor.
Further, the Speaker said:
``Very simply under the Cut-Go rule, if it is your intention to
create a new government program, you must also terminate or reduce
spending on an existing government program of equal or greater size--in
the same bill.''
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, as we already know, on January 5,
there was a violation of the rules where Members failed to take the
oath when they were not in the room.
On February 9: Failed to offer a proper constitutionality statement
with legislation that was offered.
On March 3: Failed to require a three-fifths majority for the passage
of a bill that raised tax rates.
On March 17, we failed to make legislation available for 72 hours.
And now we are failing to include an offset for a new government
program required under these rules under Cut-Go.
In order for these rules to be taken seriously, we can't simply say,
Because it's a favorite program of the Speaker, we're going to waive
the rules. The rules are there for a reason. We voted on those rules,
and they were made an important part of the change of hands in this
House. When you have statements like this by the Speaker, they should
be taken seriously. There is no argument that the funds in this bill
are simply not paid for, and I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of any point of order
against the pending measure that would be timely or cognizable at this
time.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WEINER. Is it not the rules of the House that, under clause 10(a)
of rule XXI, what the Speaker articulated in this sentence is in fact
the rule, that if you have money that needs to be offset, it has to be
offset in the same bill? And it is further not the case that in this
bill, it has been stipulated on both sides that this expense of $300
million over 5 years is not paid for.
Is that or is that not the rule of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House does have a clause 10 of rule XXI.
That rule does not support a point of order at this stage of the
proceedings.
Mr. WEINER. The rule exists, but we don't need to follow it.
I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point is that the gentleman is untimely.
Mr. WEINER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WEINER. It's a simple question: Doesn't the rule stipulated here
exist? And is the only reason we're not following it is that I didn't
get to the floor in time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to political
commentary.
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. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, I am, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the dispensing of the reading, and
I reserve a point of order against the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cummings moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 471, to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith,
with the following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DC PUBLIC
CHARTER SCHOOLS.
(a) General Authority.--From the funds appropriated under
section 2, the Secretary of Education (in this Act referred
to as the ``Secretary'') shall provide funds to the Mayor of
the District of Columbia (in this Act referred to as the
``Mayor''), if the Mayor agrees to the requirements described
in subsection (b), for--
(1) the District of Columbia public schools for continued
improvements in the academic achievement of all students in
the District of Columbia public schools;
(2) the District of Columbia public charter schools for
continued improvements in the academic achievement of all
students in the District of Columbia public charter schools;
and
(3) special education services under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) for
students eligible for such services in the District of
Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public
charter schools.
(b) Condition of Receipt of Funds.--As a condition of
receiving funds under this Act, the Mayor shall--
(1) enter into an agreement with the Secretary 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 Act; and
(2) ensure that the funds are used by the District of
Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public
charter schools for continued improvements in the academic
achievement of all students in the District of Columbia
public schools and the District of Columbia public charter
schools, respectively, by using effective methods and
instructional strategies, which are based on scientifically
based research, that strengthen the core academic program of
schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316).
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for
fiscal year 2012 and each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years,
of which--
(1) $10,000,000 shall be made available to carry out
paragraph (1) of section 1(a) for each fiscal year;
(2) $10,000,000 shall be made available to carry out
paragraph (2) of section 1(a) for each fiscal year; and
(3) $10,000,000 shall be made available to carry out
paragraph (3) of section 1(a) for each fiscal year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. ISSA. No, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the final amendment before us would
accomplish two important goals: First, the amendment would cut the
funding authorized by H.R. 471 in half, thereby reducing the Federal
deficit over the next 5 years by $150 million below what was authorized
for expenditure in the base text of H.R. 471.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side today, Mr.
Speaker. But one thing is clear: Voting for this motion will save $150
million over 5 years.
So the question for my Republican colleagues is will you be true to
your promises to address the deficit, or will you put these promises
aside to support a pet project that advances a narrow ideological
agenda?
Second, instead of spending money on a miniscule fraction of students
who would receive a voucher, this amendment would target scarce Federal
resources to areas where they would do the most good: D.C. public
schools, charter schools, and special education/IDEA activities.
As we have discussed, students participating in the existing D.C.
voucher program have shown no statistically significant improvement in
reading or math skills. By contrast, students in the D.C. public
schools and charter schools have shown significant gains
[[Page H2081]]
over the last few years. This amendment would direct funds to support
schools that have been proven to improve student achievement. This
amendment would also provide funds to support special education and
IDEA-related programs in the District.
{time} 1640
IDEA funding goes toward critical services for children with
disabilities, such as early intervention, support for special education
teachers, and assistance to help students gain access to a suitable
curriculum.
Since the enactment of IDEA, achievement among students served by
this program has improved dramatically, but more progress must be made.
As Mayor Gray discussed Monday in his State of the District address,
D.C. has been unable to serve all of its special needs kids in public
facilities and is paying nearly $250 million to send students to
nonpublic schools that can serve disabled students' unique educational
needs. This amendment would help D.C. better serve students who need
special education services in the public system.
Importantly, let it be clear that if you vote ``yes'' on this motion,
the amendment it proposes will be voted on immediately following this
debate. That vote will be followed by a vote on final passage of the
bill. Adoption of this amendment will not delay consideration of this
legislation; and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for deficit
reduction. I urge my colleagues to direct scarce Federal dollars where
they will do the most good.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this final amendment to the bill.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The point of this amendment is, if
you're going to spend this money in violation of the rule and you're
going to create additional deficit, you at least ought to spend it on
something that's effective and that works for the children and improves
their educational opportunity.
Investing in the D.C. voucher program that has now run over a period
of years by every study that has been done on it says that these
students are doing no better than when they left the school, but we're
spending $100 million to educate them. They statistically are not
improved over the performance of the school that they left, but we
continue to spend the money on the myth that somehow this is a model
program that you would replicate all over the country.
Why would you replicate a program that is so inefficient and does not
provide an educational advantage for the students participating in it?
I understand their parents who chose them to participate in the
voucher program feel they made a good decision, but that's not a mark
of whether or not they're getting the educational opportunity that
they're entitled to.
With Mr. Cummings' amendment, you can invest in what is working. You
can invest in the public schools where African American high school
students have seen double-digit gains in reading and math, and the
percentage of high school students that have achieved advance status in
reading and math has more than doubled. The percentage of special
education students achieving proficient status has more than doubled.
These schools, public and public charter schools, are working for the
children of D.C.
But the Republicans would have you insist that what you really ought
to do is take $100 billion in new deficit spending and park it in this
voucher program because of their commitment on an ideological basis,
but not on programs that work. We ought to choose the programs that
work for the children of the District of Columbia.
Mr. ISSA. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We spent an hour and 40
minutes discussing the bill and the amendment, and at least the
delegate from the District of Columbia attempted to move these dollars
all to the public school system.
This bill, in fact, not only denies the children who are in these
programs today, some of them side by side with the President's
children; but, in fact, it cuts funding for public education.
Under this motion to recommit, the funding for public education on a
yearly basis would go from $40 million to $20 million. There would be
less money in the public school system, in addition to being no money
for Opportunity Scholarships.
I oppose the motion to recommit and urge the support of the
underlying bill.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was 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--ayes 185,
noes 238, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 203]
AYES--185
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
[[Page H2082]]
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Barton (TX)
Campbell
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Pascrell
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Shuler
Stutzman
{time} 1701
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
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 195, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 204]
AYES--225
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--195
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Barton (TX)
Campbell
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Herger
Hunter
Mica
Pascrell
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Shuler
Velazquez
{time} 1708
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 against:
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 204, I was not present for
the vote due to my participation, as Co-Chair of the House Traumatic
Brain Injury (TBI) Task Force, in a meeting with Department of Defense
officials regarding the treatment of wounded warriors suffering from
TBIs.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________