[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 154 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7061-H7077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 10.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 480 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 10.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1552


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 10) to reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results 
Act, and for other purposes, with Mr. Holding in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, the Scholarships 
for Opportunity and Results, or SOAR, Reauthorization Act.
  The SOAR Reauthorization Act continues the three-sector approach to 
education within the District of Columbia. This approach gives equal 
funding to D.C. Public Schools, D.C. Public Charter Schools, and the 
Opportunity Scholarship Program, often referred to as the OSP.
  The OSP gives scholarships to children in low-income families to 
attend a private school so that those children can experience a quality 
education. The average OSP family makes less than $22,000 per year. 
These scholarships allow families to place their children in learning-
rich environments.
  District of Columbia Public Schools rank at the top in spending per 
student, but are near the bottom in academic performance. The 
Opportunity Scholarship Program gives these students the education they 
deserve so they can pursue the American Dream.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 works not only to provide scholarships to 
students who need them the most, but also to improve the current state 
of public school and public charter school education. This bill 
authorizes equal funding for D.C. Public Schools and for D.C. Public 
Charter Schools in addition to the Opportunity scholarships.
  My friends across the aisle claim that the SOAR Act takes money away 
from public education. However, that is quite the opposite. The SOAR 
Act increases funding for public education in the District of Columbia.
  In fact, since the three-sector approach has been in effect, D.C. 
Public Schools and D.C. Public Charter Schools have received a combined 
$435 million in Federal funding for school improvement.
  Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia schools would not have 
received these funds had it not been for the OSP and this three-sector 
approach. Now we are debating reauthorizing this approach and giving 
$20 million annually to each sector for 5 years, $300 million across 5 
years for D.C. education.
  It is hard to imagine how anyone who advocates for public education 
would oppose such an approach that has poured millions of dollars into 
the D.C. public education system, particularly since the OSP is getting 
a great return on its investment and is producing results. The OSP 
produces $2.62 in benefits for every dollar spent on the program, 
according to a study conducted by one of the program's evaluators.

[[Page H7062]]

  Mr. Chairman, you would be hard pressed to find another government 
program that generates this sort of result and bang for your buck. We 
are talking about a 162 percent return on investment here, an 
investment that has not taken one dime from public education.
  Mr. Chairman, it is good stuff. We talk about how to keep this 
program going because it is really affecting real people and real 
lives. We talk about the individual students and their families, but it 
is also borne out in the statistics.
  The Opportunity Scholarship students are averaging a 90 percent 
graduation rate--90 percent--compared to D.C. Public Schools, which was 
roughly less than a 60 percent graduation rate in 2013 and 2014.
  Further, some 88 percent of the Opportunity Scholarship participants 
enroll in college. Not only are they graduating high school at record 
levels above and beyond what is happening in public schools, but they 
are also going on to higher education.
  These children, though, are more than a graduation statistic. Their 
individual lives have been forever changed because of the OSP.
  I want to remind our colleagues about Joseph Kelley's son, Rashawn 
Williams. He had fallen behind in every single subject. His father had 
to get the courts involved to ensure that his school was following its 
requirements pursuant to Rashawn's individual education plan. Mr. 
Kelley was able to get Rashawn a scholarship through the Opportunity 
Scholarship Program and has said: ``I truly shudder to think where my 
son would be today without it.''
  Mr. Chairman, the OSP is changing outcomes for the least advantaged. 
The program places kids in safer high-quality schools that allow them 
to receive a good education. It brings funding to all sectors of 
education in D.C. to improve education opportunities for all.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the bill requires all 
participating Opportunity Scholarship schools to be accredited. The 
accreditation standards give the taxpayer--and, more importantly, 
Opportunity Scholarship families--assurances that District students are 
receiving the education they deserve.
  The Opportunity Scholarship currently limits entrance based on a 
control group for an evaluation study. H.R. 10 removes this arbitrary 
requirement, instituting a new study to track the results of the 
Opportunity Scholarships. Removing this barrier to entry increases 
access to the program and means more families can be afforded quality 
education for their children.
  Mr. Chairman, we had the opportunity to debate this bill in the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and I appreciate the 
perspectives heard from both sides. We had a good, productive field 
hearing.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of 
the House, our friend and colleague, for authoring this legislation. He 
has poured his heart and soul out, trying to do what he can do to help 
these young children. It has had a very positive effect on so many 
lives and in future generations. It is something we can all be proud 
about.
  He has worked tirelessly to bring opportunity to students within the 
District of Columbia, and he will be remembered by this body for his 
effort to bring a quality education to all. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give students in the District 
of Columbia the opportunity for a quality education by reauthorizing a 
program that actually works and produces results. It affects real 
lives. It is called the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I didn't really expect to be on the floor this 
afternoon managing this bill. Ironically, I was scheduled to host a 
briefing today for Members and staff on the constitutionality of the 
District of Columbia statehood bill, where I was going to show a 17-
minute HBO ``Last Week Tonight'' clip from John Oliver that lampoons 
the Congress for denying District residents their voting rights, budget 
and legislative autonomy, and statehood.
  Instead, here I am on the floor in a virtual reality show not 
speaking about the right to self-government, but fighting this latest 
attempt by the Republican Congress to impose its ideology on D.C. 
residents.

                              {time}  1600

  I ask to include the D.C. Council's letter opposing this bill in the 
Record.

                          Council of the District of Columbia,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 2015.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairperson, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Chairperson Chaffetz: We write as locally elected officials 
     to express our opposition to renewed efforts to expand a 
     federally funded school voucher program in the District of 
     Columbia. We appreciate your interest in providing support to 
     public education in the District. We strongly believe, 
     however, that federal funds should be invested in the 
     existing public education system--both public schools and 
     public charter schools--rather than being diverted to private 
     schools.
       We support the decision by Congress and the President 
     several years ago to phase out the voucher program. Multiple 
     U.S. Department of Education reports indicate that the 
     program has not lived up to the promises made by proponents. 
     These studies along with two troubling Government 
     Accountability Office reports have also revealed that many of 
     the students participating in the voucher program attend 
     private schools with fewer resources and lower standards than 
     our public schools. The evidence is clear that the use of 
     vouchers has had no statistically significant impact on 
     overall student achievement in math or reading, or for 
     students from schools in need of improvement.
       We have serious concerns about using government funds to 
     send our students to private schools that do not have to 
     adhere to the same standards and accountability as do public 
     and public charter schools. For example, private religious 
     schools, which 80% of students with vouchers attend, operate 
     outside the non-discrimination provisions of the D.C. Human 
     Rights Act. Moreover, the voucher proposal is inequitable: if 
     fully funded, the authorization would provide many more 
     dollars per student for vouchers than is allocated per 
     student in public schools and public charter schools.
       Although we believe that students who are already receiving 
     a voucher should have the opportunity to maintain and use 
     that voucher through graduation from high school, we do not 
     support expansion of the program to new students. The 
     District devotes considerable funds to public education, and 
     our local policies promote choice for parents. Indeed, over 
     the past decade the quality of public education in D.C. has 
     increased, as a result of reforms and targeted investment. 
     Families can choose from an array of educational institutions 
     based on publicly available performance metrics, both within 
     the D.C. Public Schools system and among the myriad public 
     charter schools. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has 
     called the progress of D.C. Public Schools ``remarkable'', 
     while the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has 
     ranked the District's charter sector as the best in the 
     country.
       Despite such ample evidence that the Congressionally 
     imposed voucher program is ineffective, while D.C. public 
     schools improve every year, some members of Congress continue 
     to see our city as their personal petri dish. It is insulting 
     to our constituents, who vote for us but not for any voting 
     member of Congress, that some of your colleagues push their 
     personal agendas on D.C. in a way they could never do in 
     their home states. Attacking D.C. home rule, including any 
     expansion of the voucher program, is irresponsible governing 
     on the part of Congress.
       We call on you to respect the wishes of the District's 
     elected officials on the quintessentially local matter of 
     education as you consider this issue.
           Sincerely,
         David Grosso, DC Council, At-Large, Chairperson Committee 
           on Education; Charles Allen, DC Council, Ward 6, 
           Member, Committee on Education; LaRuby May, DC Council, 
           Ward 8; Elissa Silverman, DC Council, At-Large; Anita 
           Bonds, DC Council, At-Large, Member, Committee on 
           Education; Yvette Alexander, DC Council, Ward 7, 
           Member, Committee on Education; Brianne Nadeau, DC 
           Council, Ward 1; Jack Evans, DC Council, Ward 2.

  Ms. NORTON. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I have sought a compromise that should 
be acceptable to Republicans, as it is to President Obama.
  We support, and I repeat, we support allowing our current D.C. 
voucher students to remain in the program until graduation. That 
ensures D.C. would have voucher students for many years to come.
  That is the kind of sensible compromise that Congress must get back 
to or be content with the label ``least productive Congress,'' as it 
has come to be known each year under this majority.

[[Page H7063]]

  This bill goes beyond the compromise, we have offered, by seeking to 
admit new students as well. We are here so that Speaker John Boehner 
has a capstone to his own political career. The D.C. voucher program is 
his pet project, not D.C.'s. The Speaker has introduced only two bills 
this Congress: a bill on the Iran nuclear agreement and this bill.
  Even if Members do not respect D.C.'s right to self-government, they 
should at least care whether the program improves achievement, which 
was the stated reason for vouchers in the first place. Far from helping 
students, however, the program has demonstrably failed.
  According to the congressionally mandated evaluation of the program's 
effectiveness, this program, these vouchers, have failed to improve 
academic achievement, as measured by objective math and reading testing 
scores.
  Most importantly, the program has not had significant impacts--that 
is also from the congressionally mandated evaluation--has not had 
``significant impacts'' on the achievement of students whom the program 
was designed to most benefit: those who previously attended low-
performing public schools.
  The majority cites improved high school graduation rates. However, 
the evaluation did not examine dropout rates or the rigor of the 
schools' curriculum or graduation requirements.
  The majority also cites high college attendance rates. However, the 
evaluation did not measure college attendance rates.
  Even if the program were successful, Mr. Chairman, it would still not 
be needed, at least in the District of Columbia, which has perhaps the 
most robust public school choice program in the country. Almost 50 
percent of our public school students attend charter schools, which the 
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools ranked as the strongest in 
the Nation. In addition, 75 percent of public school students in the 
District attend out-of-boundary schools. What D.C. has developed 
amounts to a model choice education program.
  Moreover, the D.C. public schools have made some of the most 
impressive improvements in the country, by any measure, spurred by 
competition from the rapidly growing D.C. charter schools, not from the 
small number of voucher schools. In fact, a 2013 assessment of D.C. 
public schools indicated that the District had made the greatest 
improvement of any urban school district in the Nation.
  D.C. charter schools have even higher educational achievement and 
attainment than D.C. public schools. D.C. charter schools outperform 
D.C. public schools across traditionally disadvantaged groups, 
including African Americans and low-income students, and have a higher 
percentage of such students, precisely the students the voucher program 
was ostensibly designed to serve.
  Greater confidence in D.C.'s public schools is also clear. D.C. 
public school enrollment has increased for 7 consecutive years, right 
alongside the very large number of charter schools.
  If Congress wants to support D.C. students, we ask that you support 
our home rule public choice, not impose yours. Any new funding for 
education in the District should reinforce the hard work of our city, 
our parents, and our residents, who have shown the Nation how to build 
a fully accountable public school choice program. D.C. residents, not 
unaccountable Members of Congress, know best what our children need and 
how to govern our own affairs.
  During this debate, Mr. Chairman, we will consider an amendment I 
have offered to restore the scientific integrity of the program's 
evaluation, one like the evaluation Congress has always mandated, and 
another to crack down on so-called voucher mills.
  Given that the Speaker's bill will surely pass, I want to work with 
Members who support vouchers to ensure that our voucher students attend 
high-quality schools, like our accredited Catholic and other parochial 
schools, not fly-by-night, often storefront schools in low-income 
neighborhoods that were opened only after the voucher program was 
created to get access to unrestricted Federal funds.
  I appreciate that the majority indicated in committee and on the 
floor that they also want to prevent voucher mills. I look forward to 
continuing to work with them as this bill moves forward to protect our 
families from voucher mills.
  Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, Congress gave the District authority 
to establish its own education system; and unlike some other local 
jurisdictions, D.C. has never created a voucher program. Instead, like 
many D.C. bills in Congress, this bill seeks to impose a program on the 
District that does not have national support.
  Just think of it. Only 3 months ago, both the House and Senate 
defeated Republican national private voucher amendments on the floor. 
Members reject private school vouchers for their own constituents but 
want to impose them on mine. No wonder.
  Since 1970, every single referendum to establish State-funded 
vouchers or tuition tax credits has failed, and by large margins. Now 
the majority wants to do to the District what it would not dare do at 
home. The recent vote to deny voucher funding on a national level shows 
where Republicans really stand.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman for this opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today, after looking in the eyes of 
the kids, students, their parents, eyes filled with hope and 
opportunity and success.
  I come to the floor today to add my support for H.R. 10, the SOAR 
Reauthorization Act, because it works. This legislation will ensure the 
continuation of the successful D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, 
which was established by Congress in 2004, to provide eligible low-
income families in the District of Columbia with the opportunity to 
attend the school of their choice.
  Innovative programs like the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program are 
necessary to fix our broken educational system and prepare our children 
for the 21st century workforce, and I am confounded that any of my 
colleagues would oppose a program that provides students with an 
opportunity for a better education, especially one that has been an 
unqualified success.
  On average, students in the Opportunity Scholarship Program have a 
graduation rate of 90 percent, well above the national average, as well 
as D.C.'s overall graduation rate of 58 percent. These students 
continue to succeed in their pursuit of higher education, with 88 
percent of the graduates going on to attend a 2- or 4-year college or 
university.
  While the benefits to D.C. children are clear, the program also plays 
an important role in empowering parents to make the best choice for 
their kids and engaging them in their educational and academic 
progress. A recent survey of parents found that 85 percent of parents 
are happy with their child's current Opportunity Scholarship Program 
school.
  H.R. 10 has garnered the support from a wide array of stakeholders. 
Just yesterday, in an op-ed entitled ``A Misguided Attack on D.C.'s 
Needy Students,'' The Washington Post editorial board defended the SOAR 
Act and wrote in support of reauthorizing the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program, noting that over 6,100 children have benefited 
from the program, while thousands more are on waiting lists.
  The Washington Post also notes that nearly 75 percent of D.C. 
residents support the program, which has provided more than $600 
million in funding for traditional public schools, charter public 
schools, and the voucher program.
  It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does not take 
any funding away from D.C. public schools. In fact, the legislation 
authorizes equal funding to public schools, charter schools, and 
scholarships.
  With an average family income of less than $22,000 for participating 
families, this program really is a lifeline for low-income D.C. 
families, offering students up to $1,572 to pay for tuition, fees, and 
transportation. Why, Mr. Chairman, would any of us want to prohibit 
these students and families from opportunity and success?
  This is a hand up to the American Dream. Ensuring our children have 
access to the best possible education

[[Page H7064]]

should not be a partisan issue, and receiving a quality education 
should not be limited to people of means.
  I urge my colleagues to continue supporting this program and pass 
H.R. 10. It is the right thing to do. Let's do it for the kids.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I simply want to say, once again, that no child currently enrolled in 
the program under the compromise that I have offered would be stricken 
from the program and all current voucher students could stay until 
graduation. It is new students that we object to, given the evaluation 
that shows that the program had not met its goal, which was to improve 
reading and math scores. By contrast, we have had improvement in 
reading and math scores both in the D.C. public schools and the D.C. 
charter schools.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, there is no waiting list for vouchers in the 
District of Columbia. However, there are long waiting lists for our 
charter schools, and now, even for some public schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

                              {time}  1615

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentlewoman from D.C.
  Mr. Chair, it is extremely unfortunate that we are here yet again 
debating legislation that would interfere with the ability of D.C. 
residents to make decisions for themselves. So far this Congress, the 
House has attempted to block laws that would protect District women's 
reproductive rights and reform Washington's drug laws. And now we are 
asked to continue a failed private school voucher program, a program 
that a majority of the D.C. Council opposes and on which they are not 
even consulted, a program that D.C.'s own longtime Congresswoman 
opposes.
  I am shocked at the arrogance of this body to set aside the will of 
the citizens of the District of Columbia so fleetingly. It is 
disgraceful that in this building, a symbol of our democracy, we impose 
such policies on a city that does not even get a vote on these 
decisions.
  Additionally, I oppose this bill because it weakens D.C.'s public 
school system. Instead of taking public dollars to outsource our 
children's education to private schools, we should be focusing on truly 
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We need an 
updated ESEA that strengthens public schools for all our children and 
prepares students for the globally competitive world we live in.
  Education should be the great equalizer, and every student should 
have access to the best education, regardless of their ZIP Code or 
their socioeconomic status. There are public schools in this country 
that are among the very best in the world. I am proud that several of 
them are in my district.
  Mr. Chair, we know that public schools can work when we properly 
support them; but, unfortunately, for certain communities, far too many 
schools continue to struggle due to lack of resources on one hand and 
relentless attempts to undermine them on the other. Private vouchers 
only further perpetuate these inequities by siphoning additional 
resources for few students while leaving the rest behind in underfunded 
public schools.
  In our global economy, it is more essential than ever that every 
child receives a quality education. To do that, our public schools need 
adequate resources. Diverting public money to private and parochial 
schools only worsens the problem.
  I support access to a world-class public education for all students; 
but too often, the majority in this body undercut that goal, whether 
through the so-called Student Success Act that leaves students in a 
lurch or today's SOAR bill that sorely misses the point.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the people of the District of 
Columbia and their elected representative, Ms. Norton. Most 
importantly, listen to the teachers and the parents who oppose this 
bill, and reject this legislation.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), the chairman of the Republican 
Policy Committee.
  Mr. MESSER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support today of H.R. 10, the Scholarships for 
Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
  I want to commend Speaker Boehner for introducing this important 
legislation and thank him for a lifetime of extraordinary leadership on 
this issue. Throughout his speakership and under his leadership as a 
former chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
Speaker Boehner improved educational opportunities for all students. 
Literally thousands of kids have access to the American Dream because 
of his dedication to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. As 
chairman of the Congressional School Choice Caucus, I was honored to 
have Speaker Boehner keynote a rally earlier this year with hundreds of 
Opportunity Scholarship recipients.
  I have to tell you, I am amazed at some of the rhetoric that I have 
been hearing today, talking about it is disgraceful that this 
legislation is before you.
  I will tell you what is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that any child 
in America has to go to a terrible school, and it is disgraceful that 
anyone would say that we should do anything but make sure that every 
one of these kids has an opportunity to go somewhere where they will 
have a chance to succeed.
  Every child deserves equal access to a great education. Lots of kids 
have great public school options in America. Other families can afford 
to send their kids to private school if they don't have a great public 
school option. This debate today is about what we do for those who 
don't.
  Unfortunately, too many kids in our country have their destiny 
determined by their ZIP Code. These children are stuck in poorly 
performing schools, and their parents feel powerless to do anything 
about it.
  That is why education choice and the Opportunity Scholarship Program 
matter. Programs like D.C. OSP allow parents to choose the best 
educational environment for their child. The freedom provided by school 
choice levels the playing field and helps ensure all children have a 
chance to succeed.
  This legislation will continue to bring greater educational 
opportunities to the most underprivileged students in the District of 
Columbia, and it takes zero--let me repeat that--zero dollars away from 
D.C. Public Schools. Because of this legislation, more than 6,000 
students have had the opportunity to attend a great school. Even 
better, an incredible 90 percent of D.C. OSP students graduate from 
high school. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is clearly a 
success and needs to continue.
  Mr. Chair, I hope for a day when we will be talking about even bolder 
proposals on this floor, because the truth is we already have school 
choice in America if you can afford it. The only real question is: What 
are we going to do for everybody else?
  Our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that 
all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights. 
In modern America, the pursuit of happiness comes on the back of a 
quality education.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I want to remind the gentleman that the $100 
million doesn't come out of the air, that this majority is cutting $2 
billion from K-12. Most of our children are K-12. That money has to 
come from somewhere. We know it comes from education funds.
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, legislation 
that would reauthorize the D.C. private school voucher program.
  This bill prioritizes an ideological agenda over the rights of D.C. 
residents to self-govern and, more importantly, over the rights of all 
students to get a quality education.
  In study after study, the voucher program has failed to show any 
meaningful improvement in student achievement, safety, satisfaction, 
motivation, or engagement; yet since 2003, it has received nearly $190 
million while failing to adhere to basic accountability standards.
  Its funding should be dedicated to improving our underfunded and 
underresourced public school system, a school system that is required 
by law to serve all students.

[[Page H7065]]

  Unlike public schools, private schools receiving voucher students 
have no requirement to serve all students. Specifically, they are able 
to--and do--reject students based on prior academic achievement, 
language ability, socioeconomic background, and other discriminatory 
factors.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. TAKANO. Many do not offer the necessary services for students 
with disabilities.
  It is a mistake to continue funding a program that fails to serve all 
students, damages the public school system, and disregards the 
District's right to choose its own education policy.
  I thank the gentlewoman from D.C. for yielding me the time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each 
side has.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 17 minutes remaining. 
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I love America. America should be number 
one, and America's capital should be number one.
  I love to talk to immigrants who do so much of the work in our 
Capital City. They all know America is great. They gush about how 
anybody can work in America and realize the American Dream.
  But when I ask about their kids and where they go to school, they 
almost uniformly send their kids to Maryland or Virginia schools. Even 
immigrants who can barely speak English and come from Afghanistan, 
Pakistan, Eritrea, or Nigeria know that D.C. schools mean stay away. 
How embarrassing for our country that new immigrants who barely speak 
English view our Nation's Capital schools with contempt.
  Finally, President Obama, we love you and Michelle for the love you 
show your daughters. You show your love for your daughters by spending 
some of your substantial salary to keep your daughters out of the D.C. 
Public Schools. Please, President Obama, show a little love for the 
children who don't have such wealthy parents and sign the SOAR Act.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I just want to tell the gentleman that the so-
called immigrants that he speaks to who send their children to schools 
in Maryland and Virginia live in Maryland and Virginia. Eighty percent 
of the jobs in the District of Columbia go to people who live in the 
suburbs.
  As to the schools in the District of Columbia, as I have indicated, 
there are waiting lines to get into almost all the charter schools, and 
the D.C. public schools have improved so much that some of them also 
have waiting lines.
  I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings), our very distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
for yielding and for her leadership.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10. We have been told 
that the purpose of this bill is to help all D.C. children get a better 
education. I strongly support that objective, but this bill does not do 
that.
  Let me be crystal clear: public funds should support public 
education. But this bill proposes to spend more than $100 million over 
5 years to fund vouchers to send public school students in the District 
of Columbia to private schools while House Republicans are proposing to 
cut $2 billion from public K-12 education nationally.
  Coming from the city of Baltimore, I understand firsthand the 
complexities of turning around struggling inner-city schools. Almost 10 
years ago, I became deeply involved in improving one of my own 
neighborhood schools--and I am still involved in that--the Maritime 
Industries Academy High School.
  It takes vision, commitment, accountability, and, yes, resources to 
begin the process of turning troubled schools around. However, it is 
impossible to turn around public schools if we divert public resources 
to private schools.
  Put simply, H.R. 10 attempts to help a few students at the expense of 
the vast majority of the District's children.
  By dividing the funding it would provide among D.C.'s public schools, 
public charter schools, and private school vouchers, H.R. 10 provides a 
third of its total funding to a tiny fraction of the District's 
students. Specifically, the bill would fund vouchers to enable only 
1,442 students--a tiny fraction of the District's 47,548 students--to 
attend private schools.
  The lack of equity is stunning. Our focus should be on maximizing the 
impact of the Federal Government's limited resources to serve all of 
the District's students.
  Since this bill last passed in 2011 over my strong objection and 
along party lines, studies of the program have demonstrated that the 
use of a voucher had no effect on academic achievement, as measured by 
math and reading scores, school safety, student satisfaction with their 
school, or motivation and engagement.
  Previous studies of this program show that 50 percent of the students 
from the first two cohorts of the D.C. voucher program eventually 
dropped out of the program. Students in the program are also less 
likely to attend a school that offers support programs for those that 
are academically challenged or have learning difficulties.
  In addition, this bill is a direct assault on D.C.'s home rule that 
was rushed through our committee shortly after Speaker Boehner 
announced his retirement, and the bill is not supported by D.C.'s 
elected representative in Congress or a majority of the D.C. City 
Council.
  So all the rhetoric justifying massive cuts to education funding--all 
the talk about budget constraints, about tightening our belts, and 
about making sacrifices--all that goes out the window when Republicans 
want to give $100 million in taxpayer funds to private schools.

                              {time}  1630

  As a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of quality 
public education, I believe our highest priority must be to use limited 
taxpayer dollars to support programs that will truly meet the 
educational needs of all of our children. This bill does not do that. I 
urge our colleagues to reject H.R. 10.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Chaffetz for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10, the 
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act. It is a 
bill to continue the popular and successful D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program.
  This program is based on the simple notion that every child deserves 
an excellent education regardless of the family's background, income, 
or ZIP Code. The program provides scholarships to students in low-
income families so they can escape underperforming schools and receive 
the quality education they need to excel both in the classroom and 
later in life. Our investment in this effort is paying off.
  Last year, 90 percent of 12th graders who received a D.C. Opportunity 
scholarship graduated from a high-quality school, and 88 percent went 
on to pursue a college degree. What is more, when asked if they were 
satisfied with the child's education, 85 percent of the parents 
responded ``yes.'' It is no wonder every year the demand for 
scholarships far exceeds the number of scholarships available. These 
positive results also explain why this important program has long 
enjoyed bipartisan support.
  Of course, there are some who don't believe these vulnerable families 
deserve the opportunity to do what is best for their children's 
education. At a time when this administration has spent billions of 
dollars pushing its own pet projects and priorities, it has routinely 
put this modest, successful program on the chopping block. Fortunately, 
Mr. Chairman, a majority in Congress has continued to stand by these 
students and families by continuing to support the program, and Speaker 
John Boehner has always stood at the forefront of those efforts.

[[Page H7066]]

  Few have fought harder or longer for the educational opportunities of 
D.C. students than Speaker Boehner. In fact, throughout his more than 
20 years in public office, John Boehner has been a tireless champion 
for families who simply want the opportunity--any opportunity--for 
their children to receive a quality education. The D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program began under his leadership. Thanks to his efforts, 
this initiative has made a positive difference in the lives of 
thousands of students across the District. This act reflects his 
continued commitment to these families. More importantly, it reaffirms 
a bipartisan commitment to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and 
the D.C. schoolchildren it serves.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to help more low-income students 
and support this legislation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this morning, a Member said that a letter had come from 
a member of the city council, Anita Bonds, asking that her name be 
removed from the letter sent by the council, the majority of the 
council, saying that they opposed reauthorization of this bill. That 
member has since called me. She writes:

       ``Dear Member of Congress,
       ``Due to some confusion about my position on the District 
     of Columbia voucher bill (H.R. 10), I want to make my 
     position clear. I oppose this bill, and I intend to remain a 
     signatory of the letter previously acknowledged that seven of 
     my colleagues on the D.C. Council and I sent to Chairman 
     Jason Chaffetz dated October 8, 2015, in oppostion to the 
     bill.''
       Signed, Councilmember At-large, Anita Bonds.

  Mr. Chairman, I submit her letter for the Record.

                                                    Council of the


                                         District of Columbia,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 2015.
       Dear Member of Congress, Due to some confusion about my 
     position on the District of Columbia school voucher bill 
     (H.R. 10), I want to make my position clear. I oppose this 
     bill, and I intend to remain a signatory of the letter 
     previously acknowledged that seven of my colleagues on the 
     D.C. Council and I sent to Chairman Jason Chaffetz dated 
     October 8, 2015, in opposition to the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Anita Bonds.

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker.)
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.R. 10, the 
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act. In the 10 
months that I have been here, one of the neat things that I have 
experienced is when we participated in a site visit with the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee under Chairman Chaffetz earlier this 
year and had a firsthand opportunity to interact with the kids and 
families about the success of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  I was recently reminded just a couple weeks ago when I was sitting in 
the hearing seeing the families, seeing the moms who were just beaming 
with pride about their children having this special opportunity. In the 
2013 and 2014 school year, the Opportunity Scholarship Program had a 
graduation rate of 89 percent, which is astonishing compared to the 
D.C. Public Schools graduation rate of 58 percent.
  As a former minister, I have taken groups in the heart of the inner 
cities, places like New York and Baltimore. Specifically, in Cleveland, 
there is a school there called Sunbeam Elementary School. Thieves had 
stolen the copper off the weathervane, the school was filthy, and there 
was a metal detector for an elementary school. We brought in a team of 
60 or 65 people and refurbished the school and did our best. But do you 
know what? That was only a temporary fix. The SOAR Act is a fix that 
lasts for a lifetime. It gives scholarships to children in low-income 
D.C. families to attend a private school. This piece of legislation 
also allows parents the opportunity to provide a quality education for 
their children.
  I believe that education will only be successful if two foundational 
truths are rediscovered: first, that parents know what is best for 
their child, and they should have the freedom to pursue the path that 
works for them; secondly, and finally, States must stand up to the 
Federal Government to reclaim their freedom to educate their children.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, let's get this straight. The control study 
did not evaluate college attendance. It was not a part of the study. 
Now, it did evaluate graduation rates. Mr. Chairman, what it did not 
evaluate was dropout rates.
  Private schools are notorious for sending back to the District of 
Columbia children who they think are not doing well or they are not 
acting as they think they should act. Unless we had those figures, we 
would have no idea what the graduation rates were, because the 
graduation rates are those who were left in the school and did not get 
sent back.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 10.
  Now, why would I rise in support of this? If you hear the rhetoric 
from the other side, you are saying this is not a program that works; 
but if you compare the results, it does work. When you just hear that 
only 55 percent of people in D.C. Public Schools graduate from high 
school and yet if they have an opportunity to go to this other school, 
89 percent graduate, my goodness, what more do you need to understand?
  Look, it is very evident about what is going on here. If you want our 
children to succeed, if you want our children to excel, and if you want 
America to be able to compete worldwide, then education is the answer. 
The true issue here is a moral issue and a civil rights issue.
  I really believe that President Obama, in 2008, was on to something. 
This is what the President said:

       The single most important factor in determining student 
     achievement is not the color of their skin, it is not where 
     they come from, it is not their parents or how much money 
     their parents have. It is who their teacher is.

  Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing that has made this country 
exceptional, it is that we have allowed everyone the opportunity to 
rise from whatever level they started at to whatever level they can 
achieve. It is only possible through education. This program works.
  Mr. Chairman, $60 million is going to be equally divided between the 
D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, D.C. Public Schools, and the D.C. 
Public Charter Schools. When we give this money to the parents of these 
children, when they get a chance to see their children excel, when they 
get a chance to see their children grow, and when they see a chance for 
their children to have great success, how can we sit in America's House 
and debate about is this really what it is all about?
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Members can keep repeating all they want to figures 
that have come from the air. The only thing evaluated by the 
congressionally mandated evaluation was the test scores. Our public 
school students and our charter school students have to take these 
tests. These children took these tests.
  Our public school students are doing better--not nearly as good as 
they should--and so are our charter schools. In fact, our charter 
schools are doing even better than our public school students, and 
these students didn't move at all. That is what the congressionally 
mandated study showed.
  As to civil rights, these schools are exempted from many of the civil 
rights laws, and for that reason, the Leadership Conference on Civil 
and Human Rights, the NAACP, and a number of organizations wrote 
opposing reauthorization of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford.)
  Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that there is one fundamental question in this 
debate, and that is: Should a child be trapped in a school that traps 
them? Should a child be trapped in a school

[[Page H7067]]

that, for whatever reason, isn't working for them but would forever 
limit their capacity and their potential in life? To me, that is what 
H.R. 10 is all about.
  I think it is important to remember that 98 percent of the kids that 
have entered this program have come from schools that were not 
performing; and in that regard, this is simply a way out, it is a hand 
up. I think it fundamentally recognizes that dignity and worth that 
comes with giving somebody a choice.
  I think it is something that every human being wants, which is simply 
a choice. I think it is a recognition of the fact that one size never 
fits all, that God makes us all different, and therefore a plethora of 
different choices is vital in the marketplace.
  Finally, it is recognition of the fact that the marketplace has the 
ability to create choices that might take forever in other systems, 
time that these kids do not have. I would ask that we refocus on the 
kids.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't know about other Members' districts, but I 
challenge Members to meet what the District of Columbia has done to 
keep students from being trapped in bad schools.
  In your districts, can 75 percent of the children choose to go to a 
better performing district? They can in mine.
  In your district, are there 110 publicly accountable charter schools 
as an alternative to your own traditional public schools? There are in 
mine.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership in 
bringing this excellent bill to the floor. This bill--of which, in full 
disclosure, I am an original cosponsor of--will continue to promote 
school choice and provide Opportunity scholarships to D.C. students 
that are most in need, while also expanding D.C. Public Charter 
Schools, therefore providing more opportunities for Washington students 
to excel and set themselves up for productive and successful lives.
  Now, to date, the Opportunity Scholarship Program has been an 
educational lifeline for more than 6,000 children from very low-income 
D.C. families, and more than 16,000 have applied to participate since 
the 2004-05 school year. Quite simply put, this program works.
  It is no secret I am a big proponent of school choice. As chairman of 
the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee, 
I have heard about the challenges many students in schools are facing, 
and I firmly believe that when parents have a choice, kids have a 
chance. This program, which has helped pave the way for others like it 
across the country, gives that chance, and it creates a healthy 
competition that causes all schools to improve, therefore helping all 
students, even those who aren't in the program.
  As I have seen in my home State of Indiana and across this great 
country touring schools and visiting classrooms, Opportunity 
scholarships provide students a hand up in improving their lives, their 
family's lives, and their communities. That is why we have a moral 
obligation to pass this legislation and why I urge my colleagues to 
join me and join the others here on the floor in reauthorizing the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  Mr. Chairman, a great education is a great equalizer. It opens doors 
to unlimited possibilities and provides students the tools that they 
need to succeed in life.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Scholarships for 
Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
  Speaker Boehner led the Nation over 10 years ago when he provided 
flexibility to Washington, D.C., children and their parents through 
School Choice. I believe that School Choice is paramount to increasing 
educational gains for all children, but especially our Nation's 
students who are most in need.
  The SOAR Act gives scholarships to low-income students to attend a 
private school, providing them an opportunity to access a quality 
education that would otherwise be out of reach.
  School Choice has proven to be successful in Washington, D.C., as 
students using their scholarships have a 90 percent graduation rate 
compared to the 58 percent graduation rate for D.C. public schools in 
2013 and 2014.
  We heard today that these statistics have been questioned, and we 
hope that the public schools are improving. But with this act would 
they actually be improving?
  I encourage my colleagues to stand up for School Choice by supporting 
the SOAR Act.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would draw our Members' attention to the editorial board comments 
from yesterday. This is from the Washington Post: A misguided attack on 
D.C.'s needy students.
  I want to remind people, as they did in this document here in this 
editorial, that eight council members seem unaware that the program was 
established in 2004 at the initiation of the then-D.C. Mayor Anthony 
Williams, who was also supported by the chairman of the Council's 
Education Committee, and it has produced results.
  The graduation rates are amazingly good, at roughly 90 percent, 
compared to D.C. public schools that are less than 60 percent. I think 
that is strong evidence that it is a winner, that it does provide a 
good opportunity for people, and that it should be reauthorized.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each 
side has remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 6 minutes remaining. 
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the author of this 
piece of legislation and the distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding, 
and thank all my colleagues who are supporting this legislation today.
  Many of us remember the story of ``The Little Engine That Could.'' 
What happened was that the train full of toys wanted to get over the 
mountain to get to the kids on the other side. The big engine said: No, 
I cannot. The rusty old engine said: No, I cannot. But the little 
engine says: I'm not very big, but I think I can. I think I can.
  Well, from the beginning, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program 
has been the little engine that could. We started this back in 2003 
with the help of D.C.'s Mayor at the time, Anthony Williams, and D.C. 
councilman Kevin Chavous.
  For years the government was promising the Moon to D.C. families and 
spending the Moon, essentially, but nothing changed. So we said: If we 
are going to support public schools and charter schools, let's also 
give low-income families the chance to apply for scholarships to attend 
the school of their choice. Let's give them that power.
  Because if you have got the resources, you already have school 
choice. You can send your kids to whatever school you want to send them 
to. You can move from the neighborhood you are in to where they have 
got a better school. But if you are poor and you are stuck in a bad 
neighborhood and your child doesn't have that chance or, frankly, any 
chance, they are just dead in the water.
  Well, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has been that little 
lifeline that could. All told, 6,100 students have escaped 
underperforming schools. In that time, the program has received some 
16,000 applications. Last spring 90 percent of 12th graders using the 
Opportunity scholarships graduated and

[[Page H7068]]

88 percent enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college. Of the 1,400 students in 
the program this year, 87.4 percent would have been in a school that 
the government has identified as in need of improvement.
  These are the kind of results parents dream of for their kids. And 
while it is my name on the bill, the best champions of this program are 
some of the most fearless kids you will ever see.
  Not only did they have to overcome the doubts of the education 
establishment, they also had to withstand efforts by some of the most 
powerful people in this city to kill this program.
  So today I am asking each of you to support H.R. 10, which 
reauthorizes this program for another 5 years. Here is why. Yes, this 
issue is personal to me and has been for a long time. But, frankly, it 
ought to be personal to every single Member of this body.
  Those of us who work here, who make a good living here, owe something 
to the kids in this town. We owe these kids a fighting chance at 
success.
  So what I am asking you to do today is help these kids get over the 
mountain. Help us keep building the movement that could. Vote for H.R. 
10.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Speaker has said that, without this program, these children would 
have been in bad neighborhood schools. Well, I think it must be noted 
that the District of Columbia has done more to make sure that those 
children are not trapped in such schools than any district I have yet 
read about or heard of.
  I have noted that 75 percent--that means the overwhelming number--of 
children stuck in neighborhood schools that they believe are not good 
schools go to the other side of town, if necessary, to a better school. 
Far from being trapped, they are encouraged to choose a better school. 
And I have also cited the 110 charter schools that increase their 
choices.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that many of the voucher 
parents whom I have met with--after all, they are my constituents--have 
said to me that they tried to get into one of our charter schools, but 
the waiting lists were too long, which is why they went to the voucher 
schools.
  Now, isn't it interesting that the voucher schools have no waiting 
list, but the D.C. charter schools and many of our public schools have 
waiting lists, so much so that D.C. has had to combine the public 
schools and the charter schools on one list in a lottery so that 
families can choose which school to go to.
  How many Members on that side of the aisle have a lottery that lets 
the children, the parents, choose the best school for them to go to? Do 
not dare tell me that the District of Columbia leaves children trapped 
in failing schools. It has gone out of its way to do just the opposite.
  And what does it get for it? The imposition by this body of yet 
another alternative. It is true that, a former mayor, who himself went 
to Catholic schools, said he was for vouchers. Well, Mr. Chairman, I 
ask you, then, since the District of Columbia has control of its own 
education apparatus, why hasn't the District of Columbia set up its own 
voucher schools? Some other districts have done that. Because the 
majority, they don't prefer vouchers, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why I oppose this 
bill. First, it has failed the goal that the Congress gave it. Bring 
these children's test scores up. The public schools have brought their 
test scores up. The public charter schools have done even better in 
bringing their test scores up. These children's test scores have not 
risen.
  Moreover, I can't fail to note how recently the majority has cut K-12 
by $2 billion while taking $100 million out of, obviously, education 
funds to fund a private school voucher bill.
  Mr. Chairman, not everybody on my side of the aisle is for public 
charter schools, but I have supported public charter schools because my 
own constituents wanted and needed a way out of neighborhood schools 
very often.
  Yet, even though I come to this floor with home rule choices, this 
body is insisting on its choices, knowing full well that nobody in the 
District of Columbia can vote against their choices.
  And it says to the District of Columbia residents: No matter what you 
do, people, no matter how good your choices are, no matter how much you 
meet the standards we often talk about when it comes to choice, you, 
who have no vote on this floor, who will not vote on this bill when the 
bell rings in a few minutes, must do what we say.
  That, my good friends, is not a chapter in democracy. It shows once 
again that Republican do whatever they care to do to the District of 
Columbia, even when they reject the same choice for their own 
constituents, and vote down for their constituents what they now impose 
on mine. Just a few months ago, the House and Senate voted down 
vouchers, but today--today--they will vote to impose these same 
vouchers on the District of Columbia.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to correct the record there. I think, obviously, somebody 
misspoke. The House did not vote on vouchers in this Congress. That is 
not what has happened.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert into the Record the letter we got from 500 
families, D.C. residents, urging us in the adoption of this.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 2015.
       Dear Representatives: We are a large and diverse number of 
     parents of children attending various schools within the 
     District of Columbia. We write to urge your support of the 
     Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act 
     (SOAR) (H.R. 10).
       The SOAR Act is bipartisan legislation which ensures our 
     rights as parents to choose the best public, charter or 
     private school for our children. It not only provides up to 
     $20 million for Opportunity Scholarships for low-income 
     families to attend private schools, but also authorizes an 
     additional $40 million per year for public and charter 
     schools in the District of Columbia. This three-sector 
     initiative provides opportunities for all our children to 
     succeed!
       Nearly 6,200 children from very low-income families in the 
     city have attended private schools through the Opportunity 
     Scholarship Program over the past eleven years--88% coming 
     from areas zoned for schools in need of improvement and 97% 
     African-American or Hispanic. These students graduate at 
     rates 30 points higher than the city's public schools and 
     have a near 90 percent college enrollment rate. These are 
     proven results!
       The SOAR Act is an example of what works in education. When 
     we can choose the best public, charter, or private school for 
     our children, there are not only more opportunities to engage 
     in their education, but also for them to achieve greater 
     academic excellence. These outcomes strengthen the city's 
     education system as a whole.
       We believe that maintaining and fully funding all 
     educational options are critically important for the city's 
     families, especially low-income families served by the 
     Opportunity Scholarship Program. No child should be denied a 
     safe, quality education because of their family income or zip 
     code.
       We therefore urge you to support the swift passage of the 
     SOAR Act.
           Sincerely,
       Ms. Nichelle Cluff, Mrs. Ifeyinwa Ikoli, Ms. Stephanie 
     Montgomery, Ms. Mary Montgomery, Ms. Nina Harris, Ms. Eboni 
     Purvis, Ms. Juliette Randolph, Ms. Ashley Adams, Ms. Naa 
     Borle Sakeyfio, Mrs. Mariama Bah, Ms. Mia Wilson, Mrs. Sherri 
     Calhoun, Ms. Lamonica Jeffrey, Mr. Darrell Cousar, Mr. James 
     Calhoun, Mr. Andrew Cyr, Ms. Kayann McCalla, Mrs. Aldrina 
     Cabrera, Ms. Kiana Wright, Ms. Albertine Cole.
       Ms. Dianna Coley, Ms. Tonya Carter, Ms. Giovanna Grayson, 
     Ms. Luciana Udeozor, Ms. Andrea Davis, Mrs. Obiagel nuel-
     Ejiofor, Mr. Emmanuel Ejiofor, Mr. Rogers Ferguson, Mr. Girma 
     Mihretu, Ms. Molita Gaskins, Ms. Latoya Myers, Ms. Djenane 
     Jeanty, Ms. Keona Lewis, Mrs. Nicole Knott, Mr. Rudy Knott, 
     Mr. Hanna Boku, Mr. Rashawn McCain, Ms. Ann Mmayie, Ms. Rita 
     Pineda, Mr. Okechukwu Mbarah.
       Mr. Carlings McPhail, Ms. Ann Meruh, Ms. Shantel Powell-
     Morgan, Mrs. Marguerita Ramos, Mrs. Muanza Sangamay, Ms. 
     Felicia Thomas, Ms. Sydney Williams, Ms. Caren Kirkland, Mrs. 
     Temitope Tayo, Mr. Anthony Ugorji, Ms. Natasha Tutt, Ms. Dina 
     Bayou, Ms. Natasha Tutt, Mr. Calvin Wright, Mrs. Julia 
     Ugorji, Mrs. Chinwe Mbarah, Mr. Souleymane Bah, Julie 
     McLaughlin, Sheila Martinez, Susan Morais.
       Joan Sapienza, Eddie Donahue, Jeseph Yohe, Carter 
     Jefferson, Vincent Browning, Jonathan Bender, Peter Frantz, 
     Ellen Graper, Elizabeth LeBras, Kiandra Willis, Robert 
     McKeon, Marcela Price Souaya, Stephen Lennon, Aleasa Chiles-
     Feggins, Sally Leakamariam, Juleanna Glover, Christopher 
     Reiter, Cristina Khalaf, Tom Shea, Sean Vincent.
       Karen Brennan, Ceci Smith, Adrienne Vincent, Pedro Smith, 
     Donna Gibson, Colleen Cavanagh, Chris Long, Aleasa Chiles-
     Feggins, Mariela Alardon-Yohe, Jennifer Browning, Philippa 
     Bender, Melanie Jefferson, Veronica Nyhan Jones, Michael

[[Page H7069]]

     Truscott, Eavan O'Halloran, Sakinah Dupree, Morris Redd, Ron 
     Josey, Susana Ramos-Izquierdo, Aimee Donahue.
       Marisse Rovira, Linda Girardi, Sharlene Mentor, Lisa 
     Richa, James McLaughlin, Glenda Morales, Samuel Parker 
     III, Clarence Jones, Leyla Y. Teos, Mavian Nouget, Kip 
     Ross, Beatriz Lopez, Charles Malloy, Steve Trynosky, 
     Carlos Aquino, Yanira Reyes, Nelly Romero, Sandra Huerta, 
     Eboni Curry, Amanda Lawrence.
       Laura Hernandez, Mogus Meles, Danielle Aguirre, Julie 
     Corsig, Andy Corsig, Alan Joaquin, Stephen Connors, Colton 
     Campbell, Amy Dean, Flavio Cumpiano, John Menditto, Michelle 
     Theic, Liza Figueroa, Shenelle Henry, Glenda Urquilla, Kelly 
     Brown, Maria Granados, Catie Malloy, Ingrid Mejia, Jill 
     Trynosky.
       Marlene Aquino, Roselia Gonzalez, Nubia Easil, Jessica 
     Martinez, Beatriz Jansen, Juan Carlos Acajabon Mendez, Betiel 
     Zekarias, Maria Torres, Carrie Hillegass, Mike Hillegass, 
     Barbara Richitt, Victoria Connors, Kiandra Willis, Marilyn 
     Campbell, Bob Dean, Felice Goodwin, Shanti Stanton, Molly 
     Robert, Jen MacLennan, Michael Grady.
       Sharon Blume, Brendan O'Brien, Kenia Reyes, Salvador 
     Hernandez, Rob Grabarz, Bentley Storm, Molly Bruno, Jennifer 
     Leonard, Geoff Morrell, Christy Reap, Genet Demisse, Javier 
     Aguirre, Neil McGrail, Kai Schmitz, Jimmy Kemp, Kathy 
     Hagerup, Stephanie McGovern, Yohannes Z. Hadgu, Thomas 
     Fitton, Melinda Johnson.
       Theresa Nahazar, Ann McAllister, Dan Goodwin, Daphne de 
     Souza, Darren MacLennan, Alexandra Walsh, Andrew Blume, Greg 
     Talbot, Darren Jansen, Susan Tanis, Sarah Grabarz, Ashley 
     Storm, Jaclyn Madden, Barton Leonard, Ann Morrell, Pat Reap, 
     Jana Patterson, Barbara Swaboda, Stephanie McGrail, Adriana 
     Schmitz.
       Susan Kemp, Brian Crowley, John McGovern, Michael Scanlon, 
     Kelly Fitton, Bassam Khalaf, John Nahazar, John McAllister, 
     Marc Sozio, Tyson Redpath, Laverne Lightbourne, Nick Milano, 
     Trisha Corcoran, Eleanor Hopkins, Liza Lindenberg, Katie 
     Krantz, John Morrissey, Joe Patterson, Chima Oluigbo, Sonia 
     Cruz.
       Mercedes Rubio, Eddie Donahue, Gilbert Richa, Nick 
     Saunders, Stephen Sexton, Thomas Faust, Meg Molloy, Michelle 
     Wolf, Bruce Cormier, Ryan Angier, Jen Rowan, Lauren Buckley, 
     Collin Cullen, Mary Santiviago, Kelly Sozio, Renee Redpath, 
     Kevin Madden, Susan Milano, Joe Corcoran, Mary Glaser 
     McCahan.
       Kate McAuliffe, Meg Knight, Ann Morrissey, Courtney 
     Knowles, Nnenna Oluigbo, Robert Cruz-Reyes, Lydia Dolan, 
     Lauren Lennon, Tom Knight, Joe Beemsterboer, Sarah Sexton, 
     Larisa Faust, Jim Molloy, Kristin Lindquist, Sarah Cormier, 
     Katreena Vigil Pineda, Mike Rowan, Mark Buckley, Brenda 
     Cullen, Sergio Santiviago, Gary Fabiano.
       Rene McGuffin, Jorge Costa, Meghan Deerin, Kelly Stanton, 
     Art Frye, John McGill, Mike Bruno, Matt Ritz, Margaret Bond, 
     Billy MacArtee, Anthony Puglisi, Monica Micklos, Tim Yost, 
     Ray Powers, Chris Dolan, Darrell Clark, Chris Connolly, Joni 
     Veith, Courtney Taylor, Athena Meyers.
       Joshua Corless, Allison Sheedy, Robin Barth, Sam Depoy, 
     Jung Kang, Connie Fabiano, David McGuffin, Michelle Costa, JB 
     Deerin, Mike Stanton, Barbara Frye, Stephanie McGill, Anne 
     Zorc, Erin Ritz, Chris Delaney, Elena MacArtee, Laura 
     Puglisi, Jeff Micklos, Liz Yost, Tom Hohman.
       Desiree Gabbidon, Yves Clark, Michelle Connolly, Tom Veith, 
     Jay Taylor, Greg Meyers, Shannon Corless, Stefan Hagerup, Woo 
     Lee, Marty Depoy, Stephanie O'Leary, Susan O'Keefe, Luwam 
     Berhane, Patti Exposito, Michael Henry, Dan Hickey, Carmen 
     Burducea, Joseph Finnegan, Michael Hyatte, Peter Komives.
       Eric Stogoski, Fred Dombo, Dave Madden, Justin Glasgow, 
     Bernardo Ahlbom, Mark Emery, Doug Skomy, Stephen Grimberg, 
     Brendan Delaney, John DiMartino, Jeffrey MacKinnon, Hirut 
     Teklu, Erika Lopez-Padilla, Michelle Marshall, Abebe Kebede, 
     Shayla Mack, Tesfaye Bune, Michael O'Keefe, Daniel McCahan, 
     Lorenzo Exposito.
       Sarah Henry, Stephanie Hickey, Radu Burducea, Elizabeth 
     Finnegan, Theresa Hyatte, Irina Komives, Julia Stogoski, 
     Michelle Dombo, Lisa Madden, Megan Glasgow, Tatiana Ahlborn, 
     Celina Emery, Mary Skorny, Christina Grimberg, Celine 
     Delaney, Ginny Treanor, Gail MacKinnon, Mekuria Gebremichael 
     Bint, Renee Lopez-Padilla, Emebet Worku.
       Carlotte Crawford, Solomon Meshesha, Etsegent Demissie, Sri 
     Winarti, Denisha Dempster, Demssie Gebremedhin, Alembanchi 
     Taye, Tezita Woldegebriel, Tesfaye Abebu Bune, Magie Maling, 
     Jessica Cabrera, LaShawn Debnam, Barbara Destry, Jaanai 
     Johnson, Hewan Abera, Siddiq Anderson, Markina Bailey, Odessa 
     Brown, Rosa Caiza Maldonado, Sharon Coffey.
       Dianna Coley, Felicia Dyson, Ruth Fekadu, Dana Grinage, 
     Sandra Hall, Lakia Harris, Shirlene Jackson, Francine 
     Johnson, Nicole Johnson, Rajeeyah Burks, Mohamad Nugroho, 
     Woinishet Gelete, Johnny Kassa, Cynthia Downes, Genet 
     Tirksso, Wosen Admasu, Sara Caceres, Johanna Rizo Martinez, 
     Nikita Pray, Estela Arellano.
       Sagrario Agaton, Mary Addae, Ruth Barnwell, Meka Burch, 
     Sherri Calhoun, Catrice Coleman, Barbara Cunningham, Lashawn 
     Durant, Moanick Fenner, Michelle Glover, Carmen Hall-Ali, 
     Deborah Jackson, Darlene Johnson, Denise Johnson, Wendy 
     Jones, Michael Jones, Alfreda Judd, Lynetta McClam, Adrienne 
     Miles, Claudia Moreno.
       Pauline Murray, Brigitta Nyahn, Naha Poindexter, Erin 
     Skinner, Felicia Thomas, Sharon Waller, Lanita Wood, Ms. 
     Myeshia Johnson, Ms. Venete Eason, Ms. Kanita Washington, 
     Mrs. Barbara Graham, Sophie Alozie, Blanca Magarin, Jeanine 
     Henderson-Lebbie, William Walker, IV, Tigistu Zewdie, Sydonie 
     Fisher, William James, Akwilina Perry, Monalisa Reno.
       Zakia Williams, Shonta Jones, Pamela Matthews, Cecilia 
     Mensah, Tonya Moore, Priscilla Moultrie, Carolina Novoa, 
     Deborah M. Parker, Michelle Roberts, Sandra Stackhouse, 
     Leslie Void, Varnell Washington, Ms. Kitty Dawson, Ms. Mia 
     Butler, Ms. Tiana Robinson, Mrs. Jill Gelman, Nejat Teman, 
     Nathaniel Garbla, Tefaye Tamire, Patrice Aubrey.
       Fatmatta Kamara, Stephon Knox, Dwishnicka Randolph, Nicole 
     Wood, Erica Iweanoge, Amanda Brown-Parks, James Parker, Teata 
     Sanders, Samora St. Firmin, Dionne Clemons, Vernessa 
     Perry, Donald Matthews, Tashana Ellis, Donita Adams, 
     Caroline Beruchan, Steven Garrison, Ms. Holly Destry, Ms. 
     Victoria Heimbold, Mr. Solomon Weldeghebriel, Ms. Jamil 
     Raspberry.
       Anne Hedian, Atchoi Osekre-Bond, Margie Bacon, Jill Wright, 
     Cathy Falk, Chanda Foreman, Colleen Scheidel, Kenny Stack, 
     Juliette Randolph, Barbara Andercheck, Indra Thomas, Dog 
     Harvey, Darah Tracy, Ginger Beverly, Tonya Wright, Brandon 
     Winder, Antilecia O'Neal, Uanna Ferguson, Aster Robi, 
     Bernadette Aniekwe.
       Patrice Davis, Ms. Maria del Carmen Reyes, Ms. Ingrid 
     Lucas, Ms. Stephanie Goodloe, Mrs. Helen Andemariam, Michael 
     Thomasian, Neslyn Moore, Judy Steele, Kathleen Downey, Judith 
     Home, Niamh O'Mahoney, Arleen Hall, Bobby Rienzo, Teresa 
     Fitzgerald, LaShawne Thomas, Sarah Kane, Frank Washington, 
     Mary Ann Welter, Shawn Hunter, Leslie Sherrill.
       Donise Yeager, Keyana Caroline, Sandra Gray, Latasha 
     Monnique Jones Ward, Anthony Speight, Deborah B. Jones, Kim 
     Atwater, Alvena P. Toland, Loretta Henry, Marilyn Sharpe, 
     Davon Wilson, Sherry Bryant, Elroy Black, Lisa Newman, Shakia 
     Henderson, Octavia Powell, Anita M. Harris, Krestin Clay, 
     Laneka Brakett, Ana Acedo-Garcia.
       Garry Jones, John Wallace, Nakeisha Thompson, Donald 
     Lampkins, Renard Hawkins, Tammy Williams, Tynisha Dunn, 
     Jovanna Bailey, Latasha Johon, Bobby Perry, Shalita Knight, 
     Keyana Howard, Kenneth Meredith, Calep Epps, Ty'ron Byers, 
     Chase Blakney, Curtis Watts, Kishara Odom, Jeffrey Corry, 
     Antonia Payne.
       Denise L. Lowery, Stephanie Payner, Tanya Lambright, Elaine 
     E. Harris, Elbert Laker, Ryan Storr, Sylvester Bynum, Lavelle 
     Lamb, Dominique Johnson, Paulette Willims, Martasha Fermine, 
     Oyhani Williams, Nasir McKeiver, Kenneth Wood, Neta Vaught, 
     Mary Joyner, Michelle L. McIntyre, Kaitlin Gallagher, Will E. 
     Henderson, Jeanette Hubbard, Ontavia Lynch, Tasha McKenzie, 
     James R. Wills, Jr.

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I also introduce into the Record The 
Washington Post editorial from yesterday, ``A Misguided Attack on 
D.C.'s Needy Students,'' actually supporting this.

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2015]

              A Misguided Attack on D.C.'s Needy Students

                          (By Editorial Board)

       Is the federally funded scholarship program for poor D.C. 
     families being forced on an unwilling city? It is safe to say 
     that thousands of D.C. parents whose children are on the 
     waiting list for a scholarship do not think so. Nor, we would 
     venture, do the 6,100 children, predominantly minorities, who 
     have used the scholarships to attend private schools. For 
     that matter, students in the city's public schools who have 
     benefited from the infusion of federal dollars that has 
     accompanied the voucher program probably would not embrace 
     the argument either.
       So whom do members of the D.C. Council think they are 
     helping as they urge Congress to kill this program?
       Fortunately, it does not appear that the council members 
     will succeed in inflicting this wound on their city. Congress 
     appears poised to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity 
     Scholarship Program, which provides needy students with up to 
     $12,572 to pay for tuition, fees and transportation to a 
     school of their choice. The average family income for 
     participating families is less than $22,000. A bill extending 
     the program for five years and championed by outgoing House 
     Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is set for a floor vote 
     Wednesday, while a bipartisan group of senators has filed a 
     companion bill that would continue the program through 2025.
       Seeking to derail those efforts, a misguided majority of 
     the D.C. Council, undoubtedly egged on by Del. Eleanor Holmes 
     Norton (D-D.C.) and other voucher critics, wrote a letter to 
     Congress objecting to what they portrayed as an intrusion 
     into local affairs. These eight council members seemed 
     unaware that the program was established in 2004 at the 
     initiation of Anthony Williams (D), then D.C.'s mayor, and 
     with the strong support of Kevin Chavous (D), then chair of 
     the council's Education Committee. Likewise, they were 
     unmoved by polling that has shown 74 percent of D.C. 
     residents support

[[Page H7070]]

     the voucher program, which, despite the specious claims of 
     critics, has improved outcomes for its students without 
     taking a dime from regular public schools.
       Indeed, the three-sector federal approach has brought more 
     than $600 million to D.C. schools, with traditional public 
     schools receiving $239 million, charter public schools $195 
     million and the voucher program $183 million. At stake for 
     fiscal 2016 is an additional $45 million. It is fantasy to 
     think there would be additional monies absent vouchers.
       School reform has brought improvement throughout the 
     system. Yet, many parents still lack the choices and the 
     access to high-quality education that city politicians take 
     for granted for their own families. We credit D.C. Council 
     Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) and council members Vincent B. 
     Orange (D-At Large), Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), Brandon T. Todd 
     (D-Ward 4) and Kenyan R. McDuffie (D-Ward 5) for not seeking 
     to deprive those parents of choice, and we hope their eight 
     colleagues will rethink their position and put constituents' 
     welfare over misguided ideology.

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is this program produces 
results. I like the variety of choices. And the Delegate has been a 
real champion for charter schools, and I applaud her for that, I 
support her in that. But the reality is the scholarships that we are 
talking about here, the Opportunity scholarships, have yielded the best 
results with nearly 90 percent graduation rates and roughly 88 percent 
of the people then going on to college. Those are amazing statistics.
  But I have heard a lot of derogatory comments. I have heard 
everything from misguided, idiotic, disgraceful, weakens, underfunded. 
Underfunded? Underfunded? That is offensive to us from Utah. We happen 
to have the lowest per pupil funding in the entire United States. We 
are not proud of that fact. But the reality is we get roughly $6,500 
per student, where in Washington, D.C. you get about $19,500 per 
student. It is not even close. And yet here we are championing and 
trying to help give more money, more resources, to what are 
underperforming students and giving them more choices.
  I guess one of the things you should consider is if the Congress does 
support this bill, does pass this bill, it is appropriated, would 
anybody on the Democratic side of the aisle actually recommend that the 
city not take the money?

                              {time}  1700

  If it is so idiotic, if it is so awful, if it is so derogatory, if it 
is so negative, then why not cut it off right now? See, they want to 
continue to allow it to happen for those who have scholarships now 
because they know it is working, and they could never look those 
parents in the eye and take it away; but they are going to deny that 
choice to future generations where we know there has been demonstrable 
success.
  So I am proud of Speaker Boehner and what he has done to champion 
this bill. I think it is a good bill. With that, I urge the adoption of 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today, I will vote against H.R. 10, which 
would continue a flawed program that pursues a partisan ideology at the 
expense of a child's quality education.
  This bill would reauthorize Washington, D.C.'s private school voucher 
program, the only program in the country using federal money to send 
children to private and religious schools. The SOAR voucher program was 
a five year pilot set to expire in 2008. Despite four studies by the 
Department of Education and two General Accountability Office (GAO) 
reports concluding that the program wasn't working, Republicans in 
Congress are doubling down by allowing taxpayer dollars to prop up 
unaccredited, and even unsafe, schools. The last thing we need, as our 
students fall further behind their international peers, are voucher 
schools operating in relative isolation, free of oversight for 
curriculum, quality or management.
  SOAR is the only program of its kind for a reason--there's no way our 
states would tolerate such nonsense. Sadly, because D.C. has not been 
freed from the partisan grips of Congress, it has become commonplace to 
see House Republicans impose their politics on D.C., despite widespread 
citizen and local government objection, from women's health care to 
marijuana reform to street design. There's justification for a program 
that funnels millions of dollars into a program shown to be ineffective 
and strongly opposed by the people that should matter--the parents, the 
educators, and taxpayers who support the system.
  Worse, the SOAR Act strips students of constitutional protections of 
civil rights: federal funds can flow to schools that do not meet the 
federal standards to prevent discrimination against disabled persons, 
persons of color, persons of a religious group, women, or any other 
protected class. The SOAR Act is a sad step backward for education 
policy, civil rights, and good governance, and I strongly oppose it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 10, 
the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
  H.R. 10 would reauthorize the District of Columbia private school 
voucher program, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), for five 
years through 2021.
  H.R. 10 would reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and 
Results Act, which provides Federal support for improving traditional 
public schools in the District of Columbia (D.C.), expanding and 
improving high-quality D.C. public charter schools, and offering 
private school vouchers to a limited number of students.
  The Obama Administration continues to strongly oppose the private 
school vouchers program within this legislation, known as the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  Members of the House should respect the self determination of the 
residents of DC by not forcing education policy onto children or their 
families at taxpayer expense.
  Rigorous evaluation over several years demonstrates that D.C. 
vouchers have not yielded statistically significant improvements in 
student achievement by scholarship recipients compared to other 
students not receiving vouchers.
  In addition, H.R. 10 would extend this voucher program to a new 
population of students previously attending private schools.
  Instead of using Federal resources to support a handful of students 
in private schools, the Federal Government should focus its attention 
and available resources on improving the quality of public schools for 
all students.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this 
bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendments recommended by the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform printed in the bill are adopted and the bill, as 
amended, shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 10

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES IN ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization 
     Act'' or the ``SOAR Reauthorization Act''.
       (b) References in Act.--Whenever in this Act an amendment 
     is expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to that section or other provision of the 
     Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (division C of 
     Public Law 112-10; sec. 38-1853.01 et seq., D.C. Official 
     Code).

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) 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 children.
       (2) In 1995, Congress passed the DC School Reform Act, 
     which granted the District of Columbia the authority to 
     create public charter schools and gave parents greater 
     educational options for their children.
       (3) In 2003, in partnership with the Mayor of the District 
     of Columbia, the chairman of the DC Council Education 
     Committee, and community activists, 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 private elementary or secondary 
     school of their choice.
       (4) The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (DC OSP) was 
     part of a comprehensive three-part funding arrangement that 
     provided additional funds for both the District of Columbia 
     public schools and public charter schools of the District of 
     Columbia. The intent behind the additional resources was to 
     ensure both District of Columbia public and charter schools 
     continued to improve.
       (5) In 2011, Congress enacted the three-part funding 
     arrangement when it reauthorized the DC OSP and passed the 
     Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act (division 
     C of Public Law 112-10) with bipartisan support.
       (6) While the National Center for Education Statistics 
     indicates that per pupil expenditure for public schools in 
     the District of Columbia is the highest in the United States, 
     performance on the National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress (NAEP) continues to be near the bottom of the 
     country when examining scores in mathematics and reading

[[Page H7071]]

     for fourth and eighth grades. When Congress passed the DC 
     School Choice Incentive Act of 2003, students in the District 
     of Columbia ranked 52 out of 52 States (including the 
     Department of Defense schools). Since that time, the District 
     of Columbia has made significant gains in mathematics and 
     reading. However, students in the District of Columbia still 
     rank in the bottom three States out of 52 States. According 
     to the 2013 fourth grade math NAEP results, 34 percent of 
     students are below basic, 38 percent are at basic, and 28 
     percent are at proficient or advanced. The 2013 fourth grade 
     reading results found that 50 percent of fourth grade 
     students in the District of Columbia are at or below basic, 
     27 percent are at basic, and 23 percent are proficient or 
     advanced.
       (7) Since the inception of the DC OSP, there has been 
     strong demand for the program by parents and the citizens of 
     the District of Columbia. In fact, 74 percent of District of 
     Columbia residents support continuing the program (based on 
     the Lester & Associates February 2011 Poll).
       (8) Since the program's inception, parental satisfaction 
     has remained high. The program has also been found to result 
     in significantly higher graduation rates for those students 
     who have received and used their opportunity scholarships.
       (9) The DC OSP offers low-income families in the District 
     of Columbia important educational alternatives while public 
     schools are improved. The program should continue to be 
     reauthorized as part of a three-part comprehensive funding 
     strategy for the District of Columbia school system providing 
     equal funding for public schools, public charter schools, and 
     opportunity scholarships for students to attend private 
     schools.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to amend the 
     Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act to provide low-
     income parents residing in the District of Columbia with 
     expanded educational opportunities for enrolling their 
     children in other schools in the District of Columbia, and 
     provide resources to support educational reforms for District 
     of Columbia Public Schools and District of Columbia public 
     charter schools.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITING IMPOSITION OF LIMITS ON TYPES OF ELIGIBLE 
                   STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM.

       Section 3004(a) (sec. 38-1853.04(a), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Prohibiting imposition of limits on eligible students 
     participating in the program.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out the program under this 
     division, the Secretary may not limit the number of eligible 
     students receiving scholarships under section 3007(a), and 
     may not prevent otherwise eligible students from 
     participating in the program under this Act, on any of the 
     following grounds:
       ``(i) The type of school the student previously attended.
       ``(ii) Whether or not the student previously received a 
     scholarship or participated in the program.
       ``(iii) Whether or not the student was a member of the 
     control group used by the Institute of Education Sciences to 
     carry out previous evaluations of the program under section 
     3009.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) 
     may be construed to waive the requirement under section 
     3005(b)(1)(B) that the entity carrying out the program under 
     this Act must carry out a random selection process which 
     gives weight to the priorities described in section 3006 if 
     more eligible students seek admission in the program than the 
     program can accommodate.''.

     SEC. 4. REQUIRING ELIGIBLE ENTITIES TO UTILIZE INTERNAL 
                   FISCAL AND QUALITY CONTROLS.

       Section 3005(b)(1) (sec. 38-1853.05(b)(1), D.C. Official 
     Code) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (K); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(M) how the entity will ensure that it utilizes internal 
     fiscal and quality controls; and''.

     SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION OF PRIORITIES FOR AWARDING SCHOLARSHIPS 
                   TO DETERMINING ELIGIBLE STUDENTS.

       Section 3006(1) (sec. 38-1853.06(1), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``identified for 
     improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under 
     section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316)'' and inserting ``identified as a low-
     achieving school according to the Office of the State 
     Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia''; 
     and
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the semicolon at the 
     end and inserting the following: ``, or whether such students 
     have, in the past, attended a private school;''.

     SEC. 6. MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATING 
                   SCHOOLS AND ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       (a) Criminal Background Checks; Compliance With Reporting 
     Requirements.--Section 3007(a)(4) (sec. 38-1853.07(a)(4), 
     D.C. Official Code) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(G) conducts criminal background checks on school 
     employees who have direct and unsupervised interaction with 
     students; and
       ``(H) complies with all requests for data and information 
     regarding the reporting requirements described in section 
     3010.''.
       (b) Accreditation.--Section 3007(a) (sec. 38-1853.07(a), 
     D.C. Official Code) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (5)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Accreditation requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--None of the funds provided under this 
     division for opportunity scholarships may be used by an 
     eligible student to enroll in a participating private school 
     unless one of the following applies:
       ``(i) In the case of a school that, as of the date of 
     enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, is a participating 
     school, the school is provisionally or fully accredited by an 
     accrediting body described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) 
     of section 2202(16) of the District of Columbia School Reform 
     Act of 1995 (sec. 38-1802.02(16)(A-G), D.C. Official Code), 
     or by any other accrediting body determined appropriate by 
     the District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent 
     for Schools for the purposes of accrediting an elementary or 
     secondary school.
       ``(ii) In the case of a school that, as of the day before 
     the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, is a 
     participating school but does not meet the requirements of 
     clause (i)--

       ``(I) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     such Act, the school is pursuing full accreditation by an 
     accrediting body described in clause (i); and
       ``(II) not later than 5 years after the date of enactment 
     of such Act, the school meets the requirements of clause (i), 
     except that an eligible entity may extend this deadline for a 
     single 1-year period if the school provides the eligible 
     entity with evidence from such an accrediting body that the 
     school's application for accreditation is in process and that 
     the school will be awarded accreditation before the end of 
     such period.

       ``(iii) In the case of a school that, as of the date of 
     enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, is not a 
     participating school, the school meets the requirements of 
     clause (i) or, if it does not meet the requirements of clause 
     (i)--

       ``(I) at the time the school notifies an eligible entity 
     that it seeks to be a participating school, the school is 
     actively pursuing full accreditation by an accrediting body 
     described in clause (i);
       ``(II) not later than 5 years after the school notifies an 
     eligible entity that it seeks to be a participating school, 
     the school meets the requirements of clause (i), except that 
     an eligible entity may extend this deadline for a single 1-
     year period if the school provides the eligible entity with 
     evidence from such an accrediting body that the school's 
     application for accreditation is in process and that the 
     school will be awarded accreditation before the end of such 
     period; and
       ``(III) the school meets all of the other requirements for 
     participating schools under this Act.

       ``(B) Reports to eligible entity.--Not later than 5 years 
     after the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, 
     each participating school shall submit to the eligible entity 
     a certification that the school has been fully or 
     provisionally accredited in accordance with subparagraph (A), 
     or has been granted an extension by the eligible entity in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii)(II).
       ``(C) Assisting students in enrolling in other schools.--If 
     a participating school fails to meet the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A), the eligible entity shall assist the 
     parents of the eligible students who attend the school in 
     identifying, applying to, and enrolling in another 
     participating school under this Act.''.
       (c) Use of Funds for Administrative Expenses and Parental 
     Assistance.--Section 3007 (sec. 38-1853.07, D.C. Official 
     Code) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Administrative Expenses and Parental Assistance.--The 
     Secretary shall make $2,000,000 of the amount provided under 
     the grant each year available to an eligible entity receiving 
     a grant under section 3004(a) to cover the following 
     expenses:
       ``(1) The administrative expenses of carrying out its 
     program under this Act during the year, including--
       ``(A) determining the eligibility of students to 
     participate;
       ``(B) selecting the eligible students to receive 
     scholarships;
       ``(C) determining the amount of the scholarships and 
     issuing the scholarships to eligible students;
       ``(D) compiling and maintaining financial and programmatic 
     records; and
       ``(E) conducting site visits as described in section 
     3005(b)(1)(l).
       ``(2) The expenses of educating parents about the entity's 
     program under this Act, and assisting parents through the 
     application process under this Act, including--
       ``(A) providing information about the program and the 
     participating schools to parents of eligible students;
       ``(B) providing funds to assist parents of students in 
     meeting expenses that might otherwise preclude the 
     participation of eligible students in the program; and
       ``(C) streamlining the application process for parents.''; 
     and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
       (d) Clarification of Use of Funds for Student Academic 
     Assistance.--Section

[[Page H7072]]

     3007(c) (sec. 38-1853.07(c), D.C. Official Code), as 
     redesignated by subsection (c)(2), is amended by striking 
     ``identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
     restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316)'' and 
     inserting ``identified as a low-achieving school according to 
     the Office of the State Superintendent of Education of the 
     District of Columbia''.
       (e) Permitting Use of Funds Remaining Unobligated From 
     Previous Fiscal Years.--Section 3007 (sec. 38-1853.07, D.C. 
     Official Code), as amended by this section, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Permitting Use of Funds Remaining Unobligated From 
     Previous Fiscal Years.--To the extent that any funds 
     appropriated for the opportunity scholarship program under 
     this Act for any fiscal year (including a fiscal year 
     occurring prior to the enactment of this subsection) remain 
     unobligated at the end of the fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall make such funds available during the next fiscal year 
     and (if still unobligated as of the end of that fiscal year) 
     any subsequent fiscal year for scholarships for eligible 
     students, except that an eligible entity may use not more 
     than 5 percent of the funds for administrative expenses, 
     parental assistance, and tutoring, in addition to the amounts 
     appropriated for such purposes under section 3007(b) and 
     (c).''.

     SEC. 7. PROGRAM EVALUATION.

       (a) Revision of Evaluation Procedures and Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3009(a) (sec. 38-1853.09(a), D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Duties of the secretary and the mayor.--The Secretary 
     and the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall--
       ``(A) jointly enter into an agreement with the Institute of 
     Education Sciences of the Department of Education to evaluate 
     annually the opportunity scholarship program under this 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 subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) public in accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(2) Duties of the secretary.--The Secretary, through a 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, shall--
       ``(A) ensure that the evaluation under paragraph (1)(A)--
       ``(i) is conducted using an acceptable quasi-experimental 
     research design for determining the effectiveness of the 
     opportunity scholarship program under this Act which does not 
     use a control study group consisting of students who applied 
     for but who did not receive opportunity scholarships; and
       ``(ii) addresses the issues described in paragraph (4); and
       ``(B) disseminate information on the impact of the 
     program--
       ``(i) in increasing academic achievement and educational 
     attainment of participating eligible students; and
       ``(ii) on students and schools in the District of Columbia.
       ``(3) Duties of the institute of education sciences.--The 
     Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of 
     Education shall--
       ``(A) assess participating eligible students in each of the 
     grades 3 through 8, as well as one of the grades in the high 
     school level, by supervising the administration of the same 
     reading and math assessment used by the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools to comply with section 1111(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b));
       ``(B) measure the academic achievement of all participating 
     students in the grades described in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) work with the eligible entities to ensure that the 
     parents of each student who receives a scholarship under this 
     Act agree to permit the student to participate in the 
     evaluations and assessments carried out by the Institute 
     under this subsection.
       ``(4) Issues to be evaluated.--The issues to be evaluated 
     under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the following:
       ``(A) A comparison of the academic achievement of 
     participating eligible students in the measurements described 
     in paragraph (3) to the academic achievement of a comparison 
     group of students with similar backgrounds in the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools.
       ``(B) The success of the program under this Act in 
     expanding choice options for parents of participating 
     eligible students and increasing the satisfaction of such 
     parents and students with their choice.
       ``(C) The reasons parents of participating eligible 
     students choose for their children to participate in the 
     program, including important characteristics for selecting 
     schools.
       ``(D) A comparison of the retention rates, high school 
     graduation rates, college enrollment rates, college 
     persistence rates, and college graduation rates of 
     participating eligible students with the rates of students in 
     the comparison group described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(E) A comparison of the college enrollment rates, college 
     persistence rates, and college graduation rates of students 
     who participated in the program in 2004, 2005, 2011, 2012, 
     2013, 2014, and 2015 as the result of winning the Opportunity 
     Scholarship Program lottery with the rates of students who 
     entered but did not win such lottery in those years and who, 
     as a result, served as the control group for previous 
     evaluations of the program under this Act.
       ``(F) A comparison of the safety of the schools attended by 
     participating eligible students and the schools in the 
     District of Columbia attended by students in the comparison 
     group described in subparagraph (A), based on the perceptions 
     of the students and parents.
       ``(G) 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.
       ``(5) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any disclosure of personally 
     identifiable information shall be in compliance with section 
     444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known 
     as the `Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974') 
     (20 U.S.C. 1232g).
       ``(B) Students not attending public schools.--With respect 
     to any student who is not attending a public elementary 
     school or secondary school, personally identifiable 
     information may not be disclosed outside of the group of 
     individuals carrying out the evaluation for such student or 
     the group of individuals providing information for carrying 
     out the evaluation of such student, other than to the parents 
     of such student.''.
       (2) Transition from current evaluation.--The Secretary of 
     Education shall terminate the current evaluations conducted 
     under section 3009(a) of the Scholarships for Opportunity and 
     Results Act (sec. 38-1853.09, D.C. Official Code), as in 
     effect prior to the date of enactment of this Act, after 
     obtaining data for the 2015-2016 school year, and shall 
     submit the reports required with respect to the evaluations 
     in accordance with section 3009(b) of such Act. Effective 
     with respect to the 2016-2017 school year, the Secretary 
     shall conduct new evaluations in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 3009(a) of such Act as amended by this 
     Act, and as a component of the new evaluations, the Secretary 
     shall continue to monitor and evaluate the students who were 
     evaluated in the most recent evaluation under such section 
     prior to the enactment of this Act, along with their 
     corresponding test scores and other information.
       (b) Duty of Mayor To Ensure Institute Has All Information 
     Necessary To Carry Out Evaluations.--Section 3011(a)(1) (sec. 
     38-1853.11(a)(1), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Information necessary to carry out evaluations.--
     Ensure that all District of Columbia public schools and 
     District of Columbia public charter schools make available to 
     the Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of 
     Education all of the information the Institute requires to 
     carry out the assessments and perform the evaluations 
     required under section 3009(a).''.

     SEC. 8. FUNDING FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND 
                   PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) Mandatory Withholding of Funds for Failure To Comply 
     With Conditions.--Section 3011(b) (sec. 38-1853.11(b), D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Enforcement.--If, after reasonable notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary determines that the 
     Mayor has failed to comply with any of the requirements of 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may withhold from the Mayor, in 
     whole or in part--
       ``(1) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 3014(a)(2), if the failure to comply relates to 
     the District of Columbia public schools;
       ``(2) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 3014(a)(3), if the failure to comply relates to 
     the District of Columbia public charter schools; or
       ``(3) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated 
     under both section 3014(a)(2) and section 3014(a)(3), if the 
     failure relates to both the District of Columbia public 
     schools and the District of Columbia public charter 
     schools.''.
       (b) Rules for Use of Funds Provided for Support of Public 
     Charter Schools.--Section 3011 (sec. 38-1853.11, D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Specific Rules Regarding Funds Provided for Support 
     of Public Charter Schools.--The following rules shall apply 
     with respect to the funds provided under this Act for the 
     support of District of Columbia public charter schools:
       ``(1) The Secretary may direct the funds provided for any 
     fiscal year, or any portion thereof, to the Office of the 
     State Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia 
     (OSSE).
       ``(2) The OSSE may transfer the funds to subgrantees who 
     are specific District of Columbia public charter schools or 
     networks of such schools or who are District of Columbia-
     based non-profit organizations with experience in 
     successfully providing support or assistance to District of 
     Columbia public charter schools or networks of schools.
       ``(3) The funds shall be available to any District of 
     Columbia public charter school in good standing with the 
     District of Columbia Charter School Board (Board), and the 
     OSSE and Board may not restrict the availability

[[Page H7073]]

     of the funds to certain types of schools on the basis of the 
     school's location, governing body, or any other 
     characteristic.''.

     SEC. 9. REVISION OF CURRENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

       The Secretary of Education and the Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia shall revise the memorandum of understanding which 
     is in effect under section 3012(d) of the Scholarships for 
     Opportunity and Results Act (sec. 38-1853.12(d), D.C. 
     Official Code) as of the day before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act to address the following:
       (1) The amendments made by this Act.
       (2) The need to ensure that participating schools under 
     such Act meet fire code standards and maintain certificates 
     of occupancy.
       (3) The need to ensure that District of Columbia public 
     schools and District of Columbia public charter schools meet 
     the requirements under such Act to comply with all reasonable 
     requests for information necessary to carry out the 
     evaluations required under section 3009(a) of such Act.

     SEC. 10. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 3014(a) (sec. 38-1853.14(a), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended by striking ``each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years'' 
     and inserting ``each of the 9 succeeding fiscal years''.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     school year 2016-2017 and each succeeding school year.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in House Report 114-300. Each further 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 114-300.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, beginning line 5, strike ``identified as a low-
     achieving school according to the Office of the State 
     Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia'' and 
     insert ``identified as one of the lowest-performing schools 
     under the District of Columbia's accountability system''.
       Page 10, beginning line 25, strike ``, or by any other 
     accrediting body determined appropriate by the District of 
     Columbia Office of the State Superintendent for Schools for 
     the purpose of accrediting an elementary or secondary 
     school''.
       Page 16, beginning line 7, strike ``identified as a low-
     achieving school according to the Office of the State 
     Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia'' and 
     insert ``identified as one of the lowest-performing schools 
     under the District of Columbia's accountability system''.
       Page 18, line 10, strike ``evaluate'' and insert ``report 
     on''.
       Page 21, line 12, strike ``A comparison of'' and insert ``A 
     report on''.
       Page 21, line 18, strike ``with the rates'' and insert ``as 
     well as the rates''.
       Page 21, line 22, after the period add the following: 
     ``Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to waive 
     section 3004(a)(3)(A)(iii) with respect to any such 
     student.''.
       Page 25, beginning line 20, strike ``may direct the funds 
     provided for any fiscal year, or any portion thereof,'' and 
     insert ``shall direct the funds provided for any fiscal 
     year''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 480, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment that I am 
offering makes small technical changes to the bill.
  First, the amendment substitutes the term ``low achieving schools'' 
for ``lowest performing schools,'' which corresponds to the language 
used by the District of Columbia on this topic.
  Second, the amendment makes clear that the Secretary of Education and 
the Mayor of the District of Columbia will monitor and report on the 
use of funds authorized by this bill.
  Third, the amendment clarifies reporting requirements in the bill to 
protect students against arbitrary exclusion from the program.
  Finally, the amendment requires the Secretary of Education to direct 
funding for public charter schools to the District's Office of the 
State Superintendent of Education.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that reflects the ongoing 
conversations with the District of Columbia regarding this bill. I urge 
its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). Without objection, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I actually agree with the chairman, and the 
chairman has consulted with us on these changes, which are technical in 
nature.
  I do not oppose this amendment. Indeed, I want to thank our chairman 
for working with us before this committee markup on this bill on some 
additional technical changes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate working with the Delegate. 
It is a good working relationship. We have our opposition from time to 
time, but she did work with us in this way, and I appreciate her 
support of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Norton

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 114-300.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of section 6 the following new subsection:
       (f) Limit on Percentage of Total Student Population of 
     School Who Receive Opportunity Scholarships.--Section 3007(a) 
     (sec. 38-1853.07(a), D.C. Official Code), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2), (3), 
     and (5)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and 
     (6)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Limit on percentage of total student population 
     receiving opportunity scholarships.--
       ``(A) In general.--None of the funds provided under this 
     Act for opportunity scholarships may be used by an eligible 
     student to enroll in a participating school for a school year 
     unless the school certifies to the eligible entity that, for 
     the school year, the number of students enrolled in the 
     school who receive opportunity scholarships under this Act 
     does not exceed the number of students enrolled in the school 
     who do not receive opportunity scholarships under this Act.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--In determining the number of students 
     enrolled in a school who receive opportunity scholarships 
     under this Act for a school year under subparagraph (A), 
     there shall be excluded any student who was receiving an 
     opportunity scholarship as of the date of the enactment of 
     the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization 
     Act and any student who is the sibling of a student who was 
     receiving an opportunity scholarship as of the date of the 
     enactment of such Act.''.
       Page 18, strike line 23 and all that follows through page 
     19, line 5 and insert the following:
       ``(i) is conducted using the strongest possible research 
     design for determining the effectiveness of the opportunity 
     scholarship program under this Act; and''.
       Page 20, strike lines 4 through 9 and insert the following:
       ``(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, if requested by the Institute, in 
     the measurements given annually by the Institute 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 3006.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 480, the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Speaker's voucher bill is sure to pass, and I am sure it is 
offered with the best of intentions. Therefore, I want to work with him 
and with Members and with those in the Senate who support vouchers to 
provide much-needed oversight for the millions in

[[Page H7074]]

Federal dollars in this bill. It is in that spirit that I offer a two-
part amendment, and both parts are entirely consistent with the 
underlying bill.
  The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, said in 2007 and again 
in 2013 that the voucher program lacks quality control, transparency, 
and information.
  In response, the first part of my amendment restores the scientific 
integrity of the program's evaluation, copied from prior authorizations 
of this bill, and the second prohibits voucher mills, not our 
accredited Catholic schools, which are attended by most of our 
children, but their competition for vouchers--a small, but significant, 
number of private schools that would not exist but for this Federal 
funding.
  First, my amendment restores the evaluation of the program's 
effectiveness that Congress has required since the program was created 
in 2004--and I am quoting from Congress--``to be conducted using the 
strongest possible research design.''
  In contrast, this bill requires the evaluation to be conducted using 
``an acceptable quasi-experimental research design that actually 
prohibits the more scientific randomized controlled trial Congress 
mandated in prior authorizations.''
  Yet the congressionally mandated evaluation said that randomized 
controlled trials ``are especially important in the context of School 
Choice because families wanting to apply for a Choice program may have 
educational goals and aspirations that differ from the average 
family's.''
  I appreciate that this bill requires for the first time that schools 
be accredited, but it gives unaccredited schools 5 years, along with 
the grace period of a year, to become accredited.
  This time frame is so long that it would allow existing and new 
unaccredited schools to accept voucher students well into the decade. 
The 50 percent cap that my amendment proposes at least would ensure 
that voucher schools would ultimately be eliminated.
  For example, the GAO found that six participating voucher schools had 
more than 80 percent of their enrollment from voucher students. A 
Washington Post investigation found one school where voucher students 
comprised 93 percent of the total.
  The majority concedes that there is a need for the ongoing evaluation 
of the program's effectiveness by requiring a study of this bill, but 
after the mandated study showed that vouchers did not improve student 
achievement, the majority took care of that by watering down the 
mandated evaluation.
  The second part of my amendment prohibits fly-by-night, often 
storefront school voucher bills by eliminating the percentage of 
voucher students in the school to 50 percent of the school's total 
enrollment. No current voucher student or sibling would be affected by 
the cap.
  My amendment would disqualify so-called voucher mills, a small, but 
significant, number of schools that cannot survive without government 
funding, most of which sprang up in low-income neighborhoods after the 
program was created to get unrestricted Federal funds.
  Why should the major recipients of voucher funds--our fully 
accredited Catholic schools or other parochial and private schools--
have to share the available funding with voucher mills of low quality? 
The way to eliminate these unaccredited schools, which are unworthy of 
our students, is to require that their enrollment not consist primarily 
of voucher students.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Post's investigation, entitled, 
``Quality controls lacking for D.C. schools accepting Federal 
vouchers,'' be included in the Record.

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2012]

  Quality Controls Lacking for D.C. Schools Accepting Federal Vouchers

                   (By Lyndsey Layton and Emma Brown)

       Congress created the nation's only federally funded school 
     voucher program in the District to give the city's poorest 
     children a chance at a better education than their 
     neighborhood schools offer.
       But a Washington Post review found that hundreds of 
     students use their voucher dollars to attend schools that are 
     unaccredited or are in unconventional settings, such as a 
     family-run K-12 school operating out of a storefront, a 
     Nation of Islam school based in a converted Deanwood 
     residence, and a school built around the philosophy of a 
     Bulgarian psychotherapist.
       At a time when public schools face increasing demands for 
     accountability and transparency, the 52 D.C. private schools 
     that receive millions of federal voucher dollars are subject 
     to few quality controls and offer widely disparate 
     experiences, the Post found.
       Some of these schools are heavily dependent on tax dollars, 
     with more than 90 percent of their students paying with 
     federal vouchers.
       Yet the government has no say over curriculum, quality or 
     management. And parents trying to select a school have little 
     independent information, relying mostly on marketing from the 
     schools.
       The director of the nonprofit organization that manages the 
     D.C. vouchers on behalf of the federal government calls 
     quality control ``a blind spot.''
       ``We've raised the question of quality oversight of the 
     program as sort of a dead zone, a blind spot,'' said Ed 
     Davies, interim executive director of the D.C. Children and 
     Youth Investment Trust Corp. ``Currently, we don't have that 
     authority. It doesn't exist.''
       Republicans in Congress established the D.C. voucher 
     program eight years ago to demonstrate the school-choice 
     concepts that the party has been espousing since the 1950s. 
     Vouchers were once thought to be moribund, but came roaring 
     to life in 2010 in states where Republicans took control. 
     Fourteen states have created voucher programs or expanded 
     existing ones in recent years.
       Some states, such as Wisconsin, now include middle-class 
     families in their voucher programs. Other states, including 
     Virginia, have begun indirectly steering public dollars to 
     private schools by offering tax credits to those who donate 
     to scholarship funds.
       In some cases, the public has pushed back against the idea 
     of routing state dollars from public to private schools. 
     Legal challenges are pending in Colorado and Indiana. In the 
     November elections, Florida voters rejected a ballot 
     amendment that would have permitted tax dollars to flow to 
     religious institutions, including parochial schools. That 
     would have enabled the state to revive a voucher program that 
     had been declared unconstitutional in 2006 by its highest 
     court. Yet Florida continues to offer vouchers for disabled 
     students who want to attend private schools and awards tax 
     credits to corporations that donate to private-school 
     scholarship programs.
       In the District, it's clear that vouchers have provided 
     many children with an education at well-established private 
     schools that otherwise would have been out of reach, and 
     their parents rave about the opportunity. Of the 1,584 
     District students now receiving vouchers, more than half 
     attend Catholic schools and a handful are enrolled at 
     prestigious independent schools such as Sidwell Friends, 
     where President Obama sends his daughters.
       But the most comprehensive study of the D.C. program found 
     ``no conclusive evidence'' that the vouchers improved math 
     and reading test scores for those students who left their 
     public schools.
       The study, released by the U.S. Department of Education in 
     2010, found that voucher students were more likely to 
     graduate than peers without vouchers, based on data collected 
     from families. And parents reported that their children were 
     safer attending the private schools, though the students 
     themselves perceived no difference.
       Congress set aside $20 million for the D.C. voucher program 
     this year. Since 2004, the federal government has 
     appropriated $133 million for the program.
       Private schools that participate in the D.C. program don't 
     have to disclose the number of voucher students they enroll 
     or how much public money they receive, and many declined to 
     release such information to The Post.
       While public schools must report test scores and take 
     action when they don't meet goals, private schools 
     participating in the D.C. voucher program are insulated from 
     such interference.
       The schools must administer a single standardized test, but 
     can choose the type. Those scores are not made public, and 
     schools can stay in the voucher program no matter how their 
     students fare.
       Schools that accept vouchers are required to hold a 
     certificate of occupancy and employ teachers who are college 
     graduates, but they do not have to be accredited. The Post 
     found that at least eight of the 52 schools are not 
     accredited.
       Parents, not the government, should determine a school's 
     quality, according to Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House 
     Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), a proud product of Catholic 
     schools who designed the voucher program. ``Our belief is 
     that parents--when provided appropriate information--will 
     select the best learning environment for their children,'' he 
     wrote in an e-mail.
       At Archbishop Carroll High School, where 40 percent of 
     students receive vouchers, principal Mary Elizabeth Blaufuss 
     agrees. ``The question is, to what extent do we trust parents 
     to make educational decisions for their kids?'' she said.
       Santa Carballo knew little about the Academia de la Recta 
     Porta before enrolling her daughter, Emma, through the 
     voucher program. She chose it because it was across the 
     street from the Catholic school for boys that her son 
     attends, also with a voucher, and it seemed better than a 
     neighborhood public school that has failed for years to meet 
     achievement targets.
       ``This is private, it's good,'' said Carballo, an immigrant 
     from El Salvador who works

[[Page H7075]]

     as a waitress and struggles with English. ``It's more 
     intelligent. And it's religious, it's good. I'm so happy.''
       A nondenominational Christian school, the Academia charges 
     $7,100 a year and occupies a soot-stained storefront between 
     a halal meat shop and an evening wear boutique on a busy 
     stretch of Georgia Avenue NW near the Maryland line.
       The K-12 school consists of two classrooms. A drum set and 
     keyboard are stowed in a corner for music class; for gym, 
     students travel nearly two miles down Georgia Avenue to the 
     city's Emery Recreation Center.
       Annette and Reginald Miles founded the unaccredited school 
     13 years ago. He is the pastor of the associated church, she 
     is the school director, their daughter is a teacher and their 
     grandson is a student.
       Annette Miles declined to say how many of her 70 students 
     receive vouchers. If the program were to end, the Academia 
     would ``have to stretch with fundraising'' to continue 
     operating, she said.
       To be eligible for a voucher, families must qualify for 
     food stamps or meet other income requirements.
       Through the D.C. program, the federal government pays about 
     $8,000 a year for each elementary school student and $12,000 
     for high schoolers. That's less than the $18,000 a year it 
     costs to educate one child in the D.C. Public Schools. Many 
     of the participating private schools do not offer costly 
     services for children with disabilities, who make up about 18 
     percent of the DCPS school population.
       The voucher payments are enough to cover tuition at most 
     Catholic schools, which enroll about 52 percent of D.C. 
     voucher students. But they pay only a fraction of costs at 
     elite institutions such as the Sheridan School in Northwest 
     D.C., where charges can reach about $30,000 a year.
       Tiblez Berhane has a daughter in eighth grade who is 
     attending Sheridan with a voucher and financial aid from the 
     school. ``It's wonderful,'' said Berhane, an immigrant from 
     Eritrea who works in a day-care center. ``We could never 
     afford this.''
       While Sheridan, Sidwell Friends and the Washington 
     International School each have one voucher student, the 
     Academy for Ideal Education depends almost entirely on the 
     federal program.
       Founder Paulette Jones-Imaan created the school more than 
     two decades ago, aiming to provide a nurturing environment 
     with small classes and a learning model known as 
     ``Suggestopedia,'' a philosophy of learning developed by 
     Bulgarian psychotherapist Georgi Lozanov that stresses 
     learning through music, stretching and meditation. Jones-
     Imaan melds that philosophy with an African-flavored approach 
     that includes students addressing teachers as ``Mama'' and 
     ``Baba,'' honorifics meaning mother and father.
       Jones-Imaan also founded a K-12 public charter school, 
     Ideal Academy, based on the same educational philosophy, in 
     1999. She served on the board for more than a decade.
       But the charter school ran into trouble. Last year, the 
     D.C. Public Charter School Board threatened to close it 
     because of chronic poor performance. Ideal Academy agreed to 
     shutter its high school, which had a particularly poor 
     record, in order to keep its lower grades open. The 
     preschool-8th grade Ideal Academy was classified as 
     ``inadequate'' this year by the city's charter officials, 
     which means it could be closed if it doesn't improve.
       Meanwhile, the private Academy for Ideal Education 
     continues on. More than 90 percent of its approximately 60 
     students are paying the $11,400 tuition with vouchers, Jones-
     Imaan said. ``If this program were to end, this school would 
     end,'' she said.
       While some schools have libraries, art studios and athletic 
     fields, the Muhammad University of Islam occupies the second 
     floor of a former residence east of the Anacostia River. The 
     unaccredited K-8 school is supported by the Nation of Islam, 
     according to director Stephanie Muhammad.
       Parents choose the school because of its small classes, 
     safety and strict discipline, she said.
       About one-third of the 55 students hold vouchers. Few of 
     the others can afford the $5,335 annual tuition, Muhammad 
     said. They are asked to help defray tuition by raising funds. 
     Last month, they sold pizzas. This month, it's coffee and 
     tea.
       The classrooms are small, located in what were perhaps once 
     bedrooms. On the walls are posters of Louis Farrakhan, the 
     controversial leader of the Nation of Islam.
       On a recent visit, the only bathroom in the school had a 
     floor blackened with dirt and a sink coated in grime. The 
     bathtub was filled with paint cans and cleaning supplies 
     concealed by a curtain.
       Muhammad said in a subsequent interview that the bathroom 
     is used only in emergencies, and students typically use a 
     restroom on the floor below in a day-care center that she had 
     previously described as unrelated to the school.
       Kevin P. Chavous, a former D.C. Council member and now a 
     senior adviser to American Federation for Children, which 
     lobbies for voucher programs nationwide, said schools 
     receiving public funds should meet quality standards. But 
     supporters of the D.C. program have been focused on 
     overcoming political challenges, he said.
       ``There should be some accountability measures in all these 
     programs,'' Chavous said. ``Our biggest challenge has been 
     the constant threats to shut this down before we can even 
     measure the schools.''
       Since Congress created the voucher program in 2004, Boehner 
     and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) have regularly 
     wrestled with Democrats over its fate. Republicans and 
     Lieberman want to expand the program; Democrats want to phase 
     it out.
       ``Our goal is to provide a quality education to all 
     children--not just a few--which is why the Obama 
     administration does not believe vouchers are the answer to 
     America's educational challenges,'' said Justin Hamilton, a 
     spokesman for Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
       Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and D.C. Mayor Vincent C. 
     Gray (D) also are opposed to the voucher program, saying 
     public dollars should go toward improving public schools 
     where they can help the most students.
       Still, the program has offered some children a crucial path 
     out of troubled city schools.
       Ophelia Johnson and her daughters were homeless when she 
     learned about the voucher program. She obtained vouchers for 
     both her daughters and enrolled them at the Calvary Christian 
     Academy, which she credits with providing her children a 
     secure, caring and consistent environment as she pulled her 
     life together.
       ``It's wonderful,'' Johnson said about the voucher program 
     that allowed her daughters to attend the academy. ``The 
     atmosphere, the education, and it's also a Christian school. 
     They taught my girls.''
       Now, Johnson is employed, newly remarried and living with 
     her daughters in a condominium on Capitol Hill. Her older 
     daughter, Tabitha, is applying to colleges.
       ``She'll be the first to go in the family,'' Johnson said, 
     pride in her voice.

  Ms. NORTON. The Federal vouchers give these schools the Federal 
Government's seal of approval. Considering that the purpose of the 
voucher program is to improve student achievement, voucher bills are 
inconsistent with the congressional intent and should not be enabled 
with Federal funds or get the Federal imprimatur.
  I appreciate that the majority indicated in committee and also on 
this floor that they, too, oppose voucher mills and are willing to work 
with me on this issue. I hope to continue to work with the majority as 
the bill moves forward in order to eliminate voucher bills, which 
surely no Member supports.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, this is the same amendment that Delegate 
Norton offered to the bill during markup, but it was rejected by the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  The amendment would cap the enrollment of OSP students, the 
Opportunity Scholarship Program, at 50 percent of the school's 
population without affecting current voucher students or siblings. The 
amendment would also restore the randomized controlled study 
requirement.
  Mr. Chairman, this program is about opportunity and choice. Parents 
should be able to choose the best schools for their children, and 
private schools should have the flexibility to determine whether or not 
to enroll OSP students.
  I understand the Delegate's concern that students maintain quality 
standards. In fact, I share it. That is why H.R. 10 requires 
participating OSP schools to achieve accreditation no later than 5 
years after the passage of the act. This is a more effective way to 
ensure the quality than by arbitrarily excluding students from the 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, the accreditation process required by H.R. 10 will 
ensure education and administrative quality control. The process will 
help weed out poor performers from this program without setting a cap 
on OSP student enrollment.
  As for the return to the control group evaluation, this is 
unnecessary for the OSP. The OSP has been rigorously evaluated using 
the Gold Standard since 2003, and it has demonstrated positive results. 
The Gold Standard Evaluation, using a randomized controlled evaluation, 
deliberately limits participation in the program.
  Under this evaluation method, some student applicants received 
scholarships while other student applicants were placed in a control 
group that did not receive scholarships. Given the OSP's proven success 
under this standard, it is time to allow as many students to receive 
scholarships as funding permits.

[[Page H7076]]

  Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the bill does not forsake 
evaluation. Instead, the bill requires the OSP students' performance 
base to be compared to that of students of similar backgrounds of the 
D.C. public schools. The evaluation method means no more students will 
be barred from a good education through OSP for the sake of the 
experiment.
  Mr. Chairman, on average, 2.5 students apply for each scholarship 
that is ultimately awarded. We should be focused on meeting the demand 
for access to a good education rather than arbitrarily limiting 
students' ability to succeed.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, which would 
unnecessarily exclude children from the educational opportunities they 
desire and deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Allen). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Graves of Louisiana) having assumed the chair, Mr. Allen, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10) 
to reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, and 
for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 480, he reported 
the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with a 
further amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Scott of Virginia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 10 to 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Add at the end of section 6 the following new subsection:
       (f) Requiring Protection of Students and Applicants Under 
     Civil Rights Laws.--Section 3008 (sec. 38-1853.08, D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(i) Requiring Protection of Students and Applicants Under 
     Civil Rights Laws.--In addition to meeting the requirements 
     of subsection (a), an eligible entity or a school may not 
     participate in the opportunity scholarship program under this 
     Act unless the eligible entity or school certifies to the 
     Secretary that the eligible entity or school will provide 
     each student who applies for or receives an opportunity 
     scholarship under this Act with all of the applicable 
     protections available under each of the following laws:
       ``(1) Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000c et seq.).
       ``(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000d et seq.).
       ``(3) Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (20 
     U.S.C. 1681 et seq.).
       ``(4) The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (20 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       ``(5) The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
       ``(6) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et 
     seq.).
       ``(7) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et 
     seq.).
       ``(8) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).''.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CHAFFETZ (during the reading). 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 Utah?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
  I rise to speak in support of the Democratic motion to recommit that 
would protect the civil rights of students at schools that receive 
vouchers by requiring the schools to certify that they provide each 
student with all applicable civil rights protections.
  The D.C. voucher program calls into question multiple Federal civil 
rights protections and turns a blind eye to the government-funded 
discrimination. For example, religious schools that accept vouchers are 
permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring, a 
violation of traditional principles prohibiting discrimination based on 
religion when using Federal money.
  The fact is that most religious schools are part of a ministry of the 
sponsoring church, and these schools either cannot or will not separate 
the religious content from their academic programs. So it is impossible 
to prevent a publicly funded voucher program for paying for these 
institutions' religious activities and education.
  Furthermore, schools that accept vouchers are allowed to discriminate 
based on gender in admissions, a violation of the principles of title 
IX.
  In addition to the discrimination based on religion or sex, the D.C. 
voucher program also raises serious concerns about the civil rights of 
students with disabilities. IDEA requires that schools that receive 
Federal IDEA funds provide appropriate education to all students with 
disabilities, but at least one study found that the schools that accept 
D.C. vouchers serve students with disabilities at a much lower rate 
than public schools.
  Failing to meet the needs of students with disabilities is just one 
of the shortcomings of the D.C. voucher program, but another issue is 
the performance of the school. A 2010 Department of Education report 
concluded that the use of a voucher had no statistically significant 
impact on overall student achievement in math or reading.
  Additional studies found that students from schools in need of 
improvement have shown no improvement in math or reading due to the 
voucher program. Furthermore, participating in the voucher program had 
no impact on student safety, satisfaction, motivation, or engagement.
  Mr. Speaker, many of those who actually won a voucher cannot use them 
because the voucher does not cover the full cost of attending a private 
or religious school. As a result, many who win a voucher find that they 
cannot use it because they can't afford the remaining cost of the 
education. So studies have confirmed that fewer than 25 percent of the 
students who use the vouchers are from schools that were ``in need of 
improvement.''
  The D.C. voucher program fails on all counts. It violates principles 
of traditional civil rights laws, it makes no improvement on student 
achievement, and it fails to reach the very children it was designed to 
help.
  Our public schools need more funding, not less. Rather than funnel 
taxpayer funding to private or religious schools that lack civil rights 
protections and fail to meet the goals of helping the right students, 
we should focus our efforts on initiatives that will result in overall 
improvement of the educational system for all of our students.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our children by 
supporting this motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, Mr. Scott of Virginia is 
one of my favorite people in this body. I have the greatest respect. 
His perspective is one that I often share.
  I would just highlight for this body here, because I do urge a ``no'' 
vote on this motion to recommit, that we had a field hearing in May. We 
have had good debate. We had a good markup.

[[Page H7077]]

We had always projected to move this bill in the fall. I think it is 
time to bring up this bill. So we have never had this issue ever 
brought to my attention as chairman of the committee.
  I would also highlight that section 3008, Nondiscrimination and Other 
Requirements for Participating Schools--I will read just point A.
  ``In General.--An eligible entity or school participating in any 
program under this division shall not discriminate against program 
participants or applicants on the basis of race, color, national 
origin, religion, or sex.''
  I do look forward to working with the gentleman and anybody else on 
these issues moving forward, but I would urge a ``no'' vote on the 
motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________