[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4695-4718]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS ACT

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 186, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 471) to reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship 
program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 186, the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill is adopted. The 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 471

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Scholarships for Opportunity 
     and Results Act'' or the ``SOAR Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Parents are best equipped to make decisions for their 
     children, including the educational setting that will best 
     serve the interests and educational needs of their child.
       (2) For many parents in the District of Columbia, public 
     school choice provided under the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as well as under other public school 
     choice programs, is inadequate. More educational options are 
     needed to ensure all families in the District of Columbia 
     have access to a quality education. In particular, funds are 
     needed to provide low-income parents with enhanced public 
     opportunities and private educational environments, 
     regardless of whether such environments are secular or 
     nonsecular.
       (3) While the per student cost for students in the public 
     schools of the District of Columbia is one of the highest in 
     the United States, test scores for such students continue to 
     be among the lowest in the Nation. The National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress (NAEP), an annual report released by the 
     National Center for Education Statistics, reported in its 
     2009 study that students in the District of Columbia were 
     being outperformed by every State in the Nation. On the 2009 
     NAEP, 56 percent of fourth grade students scored ``below 
     basic'' in reading, and 44 percent scored ``below basic'' in 
     mathematics. Among eighth grade students, 49 percent scored 
     ``below basic'' in reading and 60 percent scored ``below 
     basic'' in mathematics. On the 2009 NAEP reading assessment, 
     only 17 percent of the District of Columbia fourth grade 
     students could read proficiently, while only 13 percent of 
     the eighth grade students scored at the proficient or 
     advanced level.
       (4) In 2003, Congress passed the DC School Choice Incentive 
     Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-199; 118 Stat. 126), to provide 
     opportunity scholarships to parents of students in the 
     District of Columbia to enable them to pursue a high-quality 
     education at a public or private elementary or secondary 
     school of their choice. The DC Opportunity Scholarship 
     Program (DC OSP) under such Act was part of a comprehensive 
     3-part funding arrangement that also included additional 
     funds for the District of Columbia public schools, and 
     additional funds for public charter schools of the District 
     of Columbia. The intent of the approach was to ensure that 
     progress would continue to be made to improve public schools 
     and public charter schools, and that funding for the 
     opportunity scholarship program would not lead to a reduction 
     in funding for the District of Columbia public and charter 
     schools. Resources would be available for a variety of 
     educational options that would give families in the District 
     of Columbia a range of choices with regard to the education 
     of their children.
       (5) The DC OSP was established in accordance with the 
     Supreme Court decision, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 
     639 (2002), which found that a program enacted for the valid 
     secular purpose of providing educational assistance to low-
     income children in a demonstrably failing public school 
     system is constitutional if it is neutral with respect to 
     religion and provides assistance to a broad class of citizens 
     who direct government aid to religious and secular schools 
     solely as a result of their genuine and independent private 
     choices.
       (6) Since the inception of the DC OSP, it has consistently 
     been oversubscribed. Parents express strong support for the 
     opportunity scholarship program. Rigorous studies of the 
     program by the Institute of Education Sciences have shown 
     significant improvements in parental satisfaction and in 
     reading scores that are more dramatic when only those 
     students consistently using the scholarships are considered. 
     The program also was found to result in significantly higher 
     graduation rates for DC OSP students.
       (7) The DC OSP is a program that offers families in need, 
     in the District of Columbia, important alternatives while 
     public schools are improved. This program should be 
     reauthorized as 1 of a 3-part comprehensive funding strategy 
     for the District of Columbia school system that provides new 
     and equal funding for public schools, public charter schools, 
     and opportunity scholarships for students to attend private 
     schools.

[[Page 4696]]



     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to provide low-income parents 
     residing in the District of Columbia, particularly parents of 
     students who attend elementary schools or secondary schools 
     identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
     restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316), with 
     expanded opportunities for enrolling their children in other 
     schools in the District of Columbia, at least until the 
     public schools in the District of Columbia have adequately 
     addressed shortfalls in health, safety, and security, and the 
     students in the District of Columbia public schools are 
     testing in mathematics and reading at or above the national 
     average.

     SEC. 4. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) Opportunity Scholarships.--
       (1) In general.--From funds appropriated under section 
     14(a)(1), the Secretary shall award grants on a competitive 
     basis to eligible entities with approved applications under 
     section 5 to carry out a program to provide eligible students 
     with expanded school choice opportunities. The Secretary may 
     award a single grant or multiple grants, depending on the 
     quality of applications submitted and the priorities of this 
     Act.
       (2) Duration of grants.--The Secretary may make grants 
     under this subsection for a period of not more than 5 years.
       (b) DC Public Schools and Charter Schools.--From funds 
     appropriated under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 14(a), 
     the Secretary shall provide funds to the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia, if the Mayor agrees to the requirements 
     described in section 11(a), for--
       (1) the District of Columbia public schools to improve 
     public education in the District of Columbia; and
       (2) the District of Columbia public charter schools to 
     improve and expand quality public charter schools in the 
     District of Columbia.

     SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In order to receive a grant under section 
     4(a), an eligible entity shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       (b) Contents.--The Secretary may not approve the request of 
     an eligible entity for a grant under section 4(a) unless the 
     entity's application includes--
       (1) a detailed description of--
       (A) how the entity will address the priorities described in 
     section 6;
       (B) how the entity will ensure that if more eligible 
     students seek admission in the program of the entity than the 
     program can accommodate, eligible students are selected for 
     admission through a random selection process which gives 
     weight to the priorities described in section 6;
       (C) how the entity will ensure that if more participating 
     eligible students seek admission to a participating school 
     than the school can accommodate, participating eligible 
     students are selected for admission through a random 
     selection process;
       (D) how the entity will notify parents of eligible students 
     of the expanded choice opportunities in order to allow the 
     parents to make informed decisions;
       (E) the activities that the entity will carry out to 
     provide parents of eligible students with expanded choice 
     opportunities through the awarding of scholarships under 
     section 7(a);
       (F) how the entity will determine the amount that will be 
     provided to parents under section 7(a)(2) for the payment of 
     tuition, fees, and transportation expenses, if any;
       (G) how the entity will seek out private elementary schools 
     and secondary schools in the District of Columbia to 
     participate in the program;
       (H) how the entity will ensure that each participating 
     school will meet the reporting and other program requirements 
     under this Act;
       (I) how the entity will ensure that participating schools 
     submit to site visits by the entity as determined to be 
     necessary by the entity, except that a participating school 
     may not be required to submit to more than 1 site visit per 
     school year;
       (J) how the entity will ensure that participating schools 
     are financially responsible and will use the funds received 
     under section 7 effectively;
       (K) how the entity will address the renewal of scholarships 
     to participating eligible students, including continued 
     eligibility; and
       (L) how the entity will ensure that a majority of its 
     voting board members or governing organization are residents 
     of the District of Columbia; and
       (2) an assurance that the entity will comply with all 
     requests regarding any evaluation carried out under section 
     9(a).

     SEC. 6. PRIORITIES.

       In awarding grants under section 4(a), the Secretary shall 
     give priority to applications from eligible entities that 
     will most effectively--
       (1) in awarding scholarships under section 7(a), give 
     priority to--
       (A) eligible students who, in the school year preceding the 
     school year for which the eligible students are seeking a 
     scholarship, attended an elementary school or secondary 
     school identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
     restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316);
       (B) students who have been awarded a scholarship in a 
     preceding year under this Act or the DC School Choice 
     Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 38- 1851.01 et seq., D.C. 
     Official Code), as such Act was in effect on the day before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, but who have not used 
     the scholarship, including eligible students who were 
     provided notification of selection for a scholarship for 
     school year 2009-2010, which was later rescinded in 
     accordance with direction from the Secretary of Education; 
     and
       (C) students whose household includes a sibling or other 
     child who is already participating in the program of the 
     eligible entity under this Act, regardless of whether such 
     students have, in the past, been assigned as members of a 
     control study group for the purposes of an evaluation under 
     section 9(a);
       (2) target resources to students and families that lack the 
     financial resources to take advantage of available 
     educational options; and
       (3) provide students and families with the widest range of 
     educational options.

     SEC. 7. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) Opportunity Scholarships.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an 
     eligible entity receiving a grant under section 4(a) shall 
     use the grant funds to provide eligible students with 
     scholarships to pay the tuition, fees, and transportation 
     expenses, if any, to enable the eligible students to attend 
     the District of Columbia private elementary school or 
     secondary school of their choice beginning in school year 
     2011-2012. Each such eligible entity shall ensure that the 
     amount of any tuition or fees charged by a school 
     participating in such entity's program under this Act to an 
     eligible student participating in the program does not exceed 
     the amount of tuition or fees that the school charges to 
     students who do not participate in the program.
       (2) Payments to parents.--An eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under section 4(a) shall make scholarship payments 
     under the entity's program under this Act to the parent of 
     the eligible student participating in the program, in a 
     manner which ensures that such payments will be used for the 
     payment of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses (if 
     any), in accordance with this Act.
       (3) Amount of assistance.--
       (A) Varying amounts permitted.--Subject to the other 
     requirements of this section, an eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under section 4(a) may award scholarships in larger 
     amounts to those eligible students with the greatest need.
       (B) Annual limit on amount.--
       (i) Limit for school year 2011-2012.--The amount of 
     assistance provided to any eligible student by an eligible 
     entity under the entity's program under this Act for school 
     year 2011-2012 may not exceed--

       (I) $8,000 for attendance in kindergarten through grade 8; 
     and
       (II) $12,000 for attendance in grades 9 through 12.

       (ii) Cumulative inflation adjustment.--Beginning the school 
     year following the school year of the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall adjust the maximum amounts 
     of assistance described in clause (i) for inflation, as 
     measured by the percentage increase, if any, from the 
     preceding fiscal year in the Consumer Price Index for All 
     Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
     of the Department of Labor.
       (4) Participating school requirements.--None of the funds 
     provided under this Act for opportunity scholarships may be 
     used by an eligible student to enroll in a participating 
     private school unless the participating school--
       (A) has and maintains a valid certificate of occupancy 
     issued by the District of Columbia;
       (B) makes readily available to all prospective students 
     information on its school accreditation;
       (C) in the case of a school that has been operating for 5 
     years or less, submits to the eligible entity administering 
     the program proof of adequate financial resources reflecting 
     the financial sustainability of the school and the school's 
     ability to be in operation through the school year;
       (D) agrees to submit to site visits as determined to be 
     necessary by the eligible entity pursuant to section 
     5(b)(1)(I);
       (E) has financial systems, controls, policies, and 
     procedures to ensure that funds are used according to this 
     Act; and
       (F) ensures that each teacher of core subject matter in the 
     school has a baccalaureate degree or equivalent degree, 
     whether such degree was awarded in or outside of the United 
     States.
       (b) Administrative Expenses.--An eligible entity receiving 
     a grant under section 4(a) may use not more than 3 percent of 
     the amount provided under the grant each year for the 
     administrative expenses of carrying out its program under 
     this Act during the year, including--
       (1) determining the eligibility of students to participate;
       (2) selecting eligible students to receive scholarships;
       (3) determining the amount of scholarships and issuing the 
     scholarships to eligible students;
       (4) compiling and maintaining financial and programmatic 
     records; and
       (5) conducting site visits as described in section 
     5(b)(1)(I).
       (c) Parental Assistance.--An eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under section 4(a) may use not more than 2 percent of 
     the amount provided under the grant each year for the 
     expenses of educating parents about the entity's program 
     under this Act, and assisting parents through the application 
     process, under this Act, including--
       (1) providing information about the program and the 
     participating schools to parents of eligible students;
       (2) providing funds to assist parents of students in 
     meeting expenses that might otherwise

[[Page 4697]]

     preclude the participation of eligible students in the 
     program; and
       (3) streamlining the application process for parents.
       (d) Student Academic Assistance.--An eligible entity 
     receiving a grant under section 4(a) may use not more than 1 
     percent of the amount provided under the grant each year for 
     expenses to provide tutoring services to participating 
     eligible students that need additional academic assistance. 
     If there are insufficient funds to provide tutoring services 
     to all such students in a year, the eligible entity shall 
     give priority in such year to students who previously 
     attended an elementary school or secondary school that was 
     identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
     restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316).

     SEC. 8. NONDISCRIMINATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS.

       (a) In General.--An eligible entity or a school 
     participating in any program under this Act shall not 
     discriminate against program participants or applicants on 
     the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.
       (b) Applicability and Single Sex Schools, Classes, or 
     Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the prohibition of sex discrimination in subsection (a) 
     shall not apply to a participating school that is operated 
     by, supervised by, controlled by, or connected to a religious 
     organization to the extent that the application of subsection 
     (a) is inconsistent with the religious tenets or beliefs of 
     the school.
       (2) Single sex schools, classes, or activities.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (a) or any other provision of law, 
     a parent may choose and a school may offer a single sex 
     school, class, or activity.
       (3) Applicability.--For purposes of this Act, the 
     provisions of section 909 of the Education Amendments of 1972 
     (20 U.S.C. 1688) shall apply to this Act as if section 909 of 
     the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1688) were part 
     of this Act.
       (c) Children With Disabilities.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to alter or modify the provisions of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 
     et seq.).
       (d) Religiously Affiliated Schools.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a school participating in any program under this Act 
     that is operated by, supervised by, controlled by, or 
     connected to, a religious organization may exercise its right 
     in matters of employment consistent with title VII of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq.), 
     including the exemptions in such title.
       (2) Maintenance of purpose.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds made available under this Act to 
     eligible students, which are used at a participating school 
     as a result of their parents' choice, shall not, consistent 
     with the first amendment of the Constitution, necessitate any 
     change in the participating school's teaching mission, 
     require any participating school to remove religious art, 
     icons, scriptures, or other symbols, or preclude any 
     participating school from retaining religious terms in its 
     name, selecting its board members on a religious basis, or 
     including religious references in its mission statements and 
     other chartering or governing documents.
       (e) Rule of Construction.--A scholarship (or any other form 
     of support provided to parents of eligible students) under 
     this Act shall be considered assistance to the student and 
     shall not be considered assistance to the school that enrolls 
     the eligible student. The amount of any scholarship (or other 
     form of support provided to parents of an eligible student) 
     under this Act shall not be treated as income of the parents 
     for purposes of Federal tax laws or for determining 
     eligibility for any other Federal program.
       (f) Requests for Data and Information.--Each school 
     participating in a program funded under this Act shall comply 
     with all requests for data and information regarding 
     evaluations conducted under section 9(a).
       (g) Rules of Conduct and Other School Policies.--A 
     participating school, including the schools described in 
     subsection (d), may require eligible students to abide by any 
     rules of conduct and other requirements applicable to all 
     other students at the school.
       (h) Nationally Norm-Referenced Standardized Tests.--
       (1) In general.--Each participating school shall comply 
     with any testing requirements determined to be necessary for 
     evaluation under section 9(a)(2)(A)(i).
       (2) Make-up session.--If a participating school does not 
     administer a nationally norm-referenced standardized test or 
     the Institute of Education Sciences does not receive data on 
     a student who is receiving an opportunity scholarship, then 
     the Secretary (through the Institute of Education Sciences of 
     the Department of Education) shall administer such test at 
     least one time during a school year for each student 
     receiving an opportunity scholarship.

     SEC. 9. EVALUATIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Duties of the secretary and the mayor.--The Secretary 
     and the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall--
       (A) jointly enter into an agreement with the Institute of 
     Education Sciences of the Department of Education to evaluate 
     annually the performance of students who received 
     scholarships under the 5-year program under this Act;
       (B) jointly enter into an agreement to monitor and evaluate 
     the use of funds authorized and appropriated for the District 
     of Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia 
     public charter schools under this Act; and
       (C) make the evaluations described in subparagraph (A) and 
     (B) public in accordance with subsection (c).
       (2) Duties of the secretary.--The Secretary, through a 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, shall--
       (A) ensure that the evaluation under paragraph (1)(A)--
       (i) is conducted using the strongest possible research 
     design for determining the effectiveness of the opportunity 
     scholarship program under this Act; and
       (ii) addresses the issues described in paragraph (4); and
       (B) disseminate information on the impact of the program--
       (i) in increasing the academic growth and achievement of 
     participating eligible students; and
       (ii) on students and schools in the District of Columbia.
       (3) Duties of the institute of education sciences.--The 
     Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of 
     Education shall--
       (A) use a grade appropriate, nationally norm-referenced 
     standardized test each school year to assess participating 
     eligible students;
       (B) measure the academic achievement of all participating 
     eligible students; and
       (C) work with the eligible entities to ensure that the 
     parents of each student who applies for a scholarship under 
     this Act (regardless of whether the student receives the 
     scholarship) and the parents of each student participating in 
     the scholarship program under this Act, agree that the 
     student will participate in the measurements given annually 
     by the Institute of Educational Sciences for the period for 
     which the student applied for or received the scholarship, 
     respectively, except that nothing in this subparagraph shall 
     affect a student's priority for an opportunity scholarship as 
     provided under section 6.
       (4) Issues to be evaluated.--The issues to be evaluated 
     under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the following:
       (A) A comparison of the academic growth and achievement of 
     participating eligible students in the measurements described 
     in paragraph (3) to the academic growth and achievement of 
     the eligible students in the same grades who sought to 
     participate in the scholarship program under this Act but 
     were not selected.
       (B) The success of the program in expanding choice options 
     for parents of participating eligible students, improving 
     parental and student satisfaction of such parents and 
     students, respectively, and increasing parental involvement 
     of such parents in the education of their children.
       (C) The reasons parents of participating eligible students 
     choose for their children to participate in the program, 
     including important characteristics for selecting schools.
       (D) A comparison of the retention rates, high school 
     graduation rates, and college admission rates of 
     participating eligible students with the retention rates, 
     high school graduation rates, and college admission rates of 
     students of similar backgrounds who do not participate in 
     such program.
       (E) A comparison of the safety of the schools attended by 
     participating eligible students and the schools in the 
     District of Columbia attended by students who do not 
     participate in the program, based on the perceptions of the 
     students and parents.
       (F) Such other issues with respect to participating 
     eligible students as the Secretary considers appropriate for 
     inclusion in the evaluation, such as the impact of the 
     program on public elementary schools and secondary schools in 
     the District of Columbia.
       (G) An analysis of the issues described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (F) by applying such subparagraphs by 
     substituting ``the subgroup of participating eligible 
     students who have used each opportunity scholarship awarded 
     to such students under this Act to attend a participating 
     school'' for ``participating eligible students'' each place 
     such term appears.
       (5) Prohibition.--Personally identifiable information 
     regarding the results of the measurements used for the 
     evaluations may not be disclosed, except to the parents of 
     the student to whom the information relates.
       (b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations, Education and the Workforce, and Oversight 
     and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate--
       (1) annual interim reports, not later than April 1 of the 
     year following the year of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and each subsequent year through the year in which the final 
     report is submitted under paragraph (2), on the progress and 
     preliminary results of the evaluation of the opportunity 
     scholarship program funded under this Act; and
       (2) a final report, not later than 1 year after the final 
     year for which a grant is made under section 4(a), on the 
     results of the evaluation of the program.
       (c) Public Availability.--All reports and underlying data 
     gathered pursuant to this section shall be made available to 
     the public upon request, in a timely manner following 
     submission of the applicable report under subsection (b), 
     except that personally identifiable information shall not be 
     disclosed or made available to the public.

[[Page 4698]]

       (d) Limit on Amount Expended.--The amount expended by the 
     Secretary to carry out this section for any fiscal year may 
     not exceed 5 percent of the total amount appropriated under 
     section 14(a)(1) for the fiscal year.

     SEC. 10. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Activities Reports.--Each eligible entity receiving 
     funds under section 4(a) during a year shall submit a report 
     to the Secretary not later than July 30 of the following year 
     regarding the activities carried out with the funds during 
     the preceding year.
       (b) Achievement Reports.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to the reports required under 
     subsection (a), each eligible entity receiving funds under 
     section 4(a) shall, not later than September 1 of the year 
     during which the second school year of the entity's program 
     is completed and each of the next 2 years thereafter, submit 
     to the Secretary a report, including any pertinent data 
     collected in the preceding 2 school years, concerning--
       (A) the academic growth and achievement of students 
     participating in the program;
       (B) the high school graduation and college admission rates 
     of students who participate in the program, where 
     appropriate; and
       (C) parental satisfaction with the program.
       (2) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--No 
     report under this subsection may contain any personally 
     identifiable information.
       (c) Reports to Parents.--
       (1) In general.--Each eligible entity receiving funds under 
     section 4(a) shall ensure that each school participating in 
     the entity's program under this Act during a school year 
     reports at least once during the year to the parents of each 
     of the school's students who are participating in the program 
     on--
       (A) the student's academic achievement, as measured by a 
     comparison with the aggregate academic achievement of other 
     participating students at the student's school in the same 
     grade or level, as appropriate, and the aggregate academic 
     achievement of the student's peers at the student's school in 
     the same grade or level, as appropriate;
       (B) the safety of the school, including the incidence of 
     school violence, student suspensions, and student expulsions; 
     and
       (C) the accreditation status of the school.
       (2) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--No 
     report under this subsection may contain any personally 
     identifiable information, except as to the student who is the 
     subject of the report to that student's parent.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     first appropriation of funds under section 14, and each 
     succeeding year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Education and the Workforce, 
     and Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions, and Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, an annual report on the 
     findings of the reports submitted under subsections (a) and 
     (b).

     SEC. 11. DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DC PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) Condition of Receipt of Funds.--As a condition of 
     receiving funds under this Act on behalf of the District of 
     Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public 
     charter schools, the Mayor shall agree to carry out the 
     following:
       (1) Information requests.--Ensure that all the District of 
     Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public 
     charter schools comply with all reasonable requests for 
     information for purposes of the evaluation under section 
     9(a).
       (2) Agreement with the secretary.--Enter into the agreement 
     described in section 9(a)(1)(B) to monitor and evaluate the 
     use of funds authorized and appropriated for the District of 
     Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public 
     charter schools under this Act.
       (3) Submission of report.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the first appropriation of funds under section 14, and each 
     succeeding year thereafter, submit to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
     and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, information on--
       (A) how the funds authorized and appropriated under this 
     Act for the District of Columbia public schools and the 
     District of Columbia public charter schools were used in the 
     preceding school year; and
       (B) how such funds are contributing to student achievement.
       (b) Enforcement.--If, after reasonable notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing for the Mayor, the Secretary 
     determines that the Mayor has not been in compliance with 1 
     or more of the requirements described in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary may withhold from the Mayor, in whole or in part, 
     further funds under this Act for the District of Columbia 
     public schools and the District of Columbia public charter 
     schools.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to reduce, or otherwise affect, funding provided 
     under this Act for the opportunity scholarship program under 
     this Act.

     SEC. 12. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

       (a) Repeal.--The DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 
     (sec. 38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code) is repealed.
       (b) Special Rules.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--
       (1) funding appropriated to provide opportunity 
     scholarships for students in the District of Columbia under 
     the heading ``Federal Payment for School Improvement'' in 
     title IV of division D of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 
     2009 (Public Law 111-8; 123 Stat. 653), the heading ``Federal 
     Payment for School Improvement'' in title IV of division C of 
     the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-
     117; 123 Stat. 3181), or any other Act, may be used to 
     provide opportunity scholarships under section 7(a) for the 
     2011-2012 school year to students who have not previously 
     received such scholarships;
       (2) the fourth and fifth provisos under the heading 
     ``Federal Payment for School Improvement'' of title IV of 
     Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 
     (Public Law 111-117; 123 Stat. 3181) shall not apply; and
       (3) any unobligated amounts reserved to carry out the 
     provisos described in paragraph (2) shall be made available 
     to an eligible entity receiving a grant under section 4(a)--
       (A) for administrative expenses described in section 7(b); 
     or
       (B) to provide opportunity scholarships under section 7(a), 
     including to provide such scholarships for the 2011-2012 
     school year to students who have not previously received such 
     scholarships.
       (c) Multiyear Awards.--The recipient of a grant or contract 
     under the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 38-
     1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code), as such Act was in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, shall continue to receive funds in accordance with the 
     terms and conditions of such grant or contract, except that--
       (1) the provisos relating to opportunity scholarships in 
     the Acts described in subsection (b)(1) shall not apply; and
       (2) the memorandum of understanding described in subsection 
     (d), including any revision made under such subsection, shall 
     apply.
       (d) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Secretary and the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall revise the memorandum 
     of understanding entered into under the DC School Choice 
     Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official 
     Code), as such Act was in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, to address--
       (1) the implementation of the opportunity scholarship 
     program under this Act; and
       (2) how the Mayor will ensure that the District of Columbia 
     public schools and the District of Columbia public charter 
     schools comply with all the reasonable requests for 
     information as necessary to fulfill the requirements for 
     evaluations conducted under section 9(a).
       (e) Orderly Transition.--Subject to subsections (c) and 
     (d), the Secretary shall take such steps as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate to provide for the orderly 
     transition to the authority of this Act from any authority 
     under the provisions of the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 
     2003 (sec. 38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code), as such 
     Act was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 13. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school'' 
     means an institutional day or residential school, including a 
     public elementary charter school, that provides elementary 
     education, as determined under District of Columbia law.
       (2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means 
     any of the following:
       (A) A nonprofit organization.
       (B) A consortium of nonprofit organizations.
       (3) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student'' means 
     a student who is a resident of the District of Columbia and 
     comes from a household--
       (A) receiving assistance under the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); or
       (B) whose income does not exceed--
       (i) 185 percent of the poverty line; or
       (ii) in the case of a student participating in the 
     opportunity scholarship program in the preceding year under 
     this Act or the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 
     38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code), as such Act was in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, 
     300 percent of the poverty line.
       (4) Mayor.--The term ``Mayor'' means the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia.
       (5) Parent.--The term ``parent'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (6) Participating eligible student.--The term 
     ``participating eligible student'' means an eligible student 
     awarded an opportunity scholarship under this Act, without 
     regard to whether the student uses the scholarship to attend 
     a participating school.
       (7) Participating school.--The term ``participating 
     school'' means a private elementary school or secondary 
     school participating in the opportunity scholarship program 
     of an eligible entity under this Act.
       (8) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 9101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (9) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' means 
     an institutional day or residential school, including a 
     public secondary charter school, that provides secondary 
     education, as determined under District of Columbia law, 
     except that the term does not include any education beyond 
     grade 12.

[[Page 4699]]

       (10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.

     SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years, of which--
       (1) one-third shall be made available to carry out the 
     opportunity scholarship program under this Act for each 
     fiscal year;
       (2) one-third shall be made available to carry out section 
     4(b)(1) for each fiscal year; and
       (3) one-third shall be made available to carry out section 
     4(b)(2) for each fiscal year.
       (b) Apportionment.--If the total amount of funds 
     appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year does not 
     equal $60,000,000, the funds shall be apportioned in the 
     manner described in subsection (a) for such fiscal year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in House Report 112-45, if offered by the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) or her designee, which shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
read, and shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 
471 and include extraneous materials thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in strong support 
of H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act.
  H.R. 471 is not new but H.R. 471 is essential. It reauthorizes and 
makes improvements in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which 
was created by Congress in 2003 to provide eligible low-income District 
parents with an opportunity to send their children to a private school 
of their choice.

                              {time}  1410

  But it does more. It also provides an equal amount of money for 
chartered public schools, which are greater in the District of Columbia 
perhaps than anywhere else in the Nation, and an equal amount for 
improving the public school system in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, this Act gives twice as much money to the two categories 
of public schools--conventional schools and chartered public schools--
than it does to the scholarship program. However, the scholarship 
program is a focus of this bill, and it's a focus because this program 
has proven to be successful. In fact, 74 percent of all District 
residents, when polled, favor the continuation of this program as to 
these D.C. Opportunity Scholarships. Obviously among those who have had 
opportunities they would not otherwise have had, those who have gone on 
to college and enjoyed benefits because of their opportunity to seek an 
education of their choice, it is 100 percent valuable.
  Mr. Speaker, we have pursued regular order on this bill. We have gone 
through both the subcommittee and the committee process. We have had an 
extensive hearing, and we believe this bill is absolutely essential. I 
will mention that, pursuant to the goals of the Republican House, we 
have made some austerity. Originally, this would have been $75 million. 
It is $15 million less because at this time, although we would like to 
do more, we have to make those kinds of trimmings that are possible.
  Still, Mr. Speaker, this is a jewel of the D.C. school system. It is 
an opportunity for people to have the kind of choice they have in few 
other areas. And I want to personally thank the Speaker of the House 
for bringing this piece of legislation and for all of his work through 
all of the years in which he worked so hard on the Education Committee 
to understand this program in a way that no other Member does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 471.
  Let me be very clear: Public funds should support public education. 
But this bill, which would authorize $300 million to support education 
in the District of Columbia, includes an authorization for the 
expenditure of $100 million over 5 years to enable a tiny fraction of 
D.C. students to attend private schools. We have been told that the 
purpose of this bill is to help D.C. children get a better education. 
But House Republicans passed legislation earlier this year that slashes 
billions of dollars from educational programs across the country. In 
H.R. 1, which passed the House in February, House Republicans cut $5.7 
billion from the Pell Grant program, $1 billion from Head Start, $757 
million from Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, $694 
million from Title I-A grants, and $100 million from the 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers. Under these Republican cuts, nearly 44,000 
students from the District of Columbia could see their Pell Grants 
reduced, 700 would lose their Head Start placements, 500 could face 
reduced or eliminated after-school placements, and 2,500 would lose 
supplemental educational services.
  Remarkably now, after voting to leave so many behind, the Republican 
leadership wants to authorize $100 million in new spending just for 
private schools in the District as part of a $300 million authorization 
for education in that one district. And the majority does not even pay 
for any part of this $300 million bill. Let me be clear on this point: 
There is no offset for this bill. For that reason, H.R. 471 also 
appears to violate the legislative protocols issued by the majority 
with such fanfare at the beginning of this Congress. So all the 
rhetoric supposedly justifying massive cuts to education funding, all 
the talks about budget constraints, about tightening our belts, and 
about making sacrifices, all that goes out the window when the majority 
wants to give $100 million in taxpayer funds to private schools.
  Also problematic is that the D.C. voucher program has not resulted in 
better student achievement. The Institute for Education Sciences 
evaluated this program and found that in 2010, there was no overall 
statistically significant impact on student achievement in reading or 
math. By comparison, reading and math test scores did improve among 
students enrolled in the District's public schools and its public 
charter schools from 2007 to 2010.
  The bill is also a direct assault on D.C. home rule. The Speaker did 
not consult with the District's representative or its elected officials 
before introducing the bill. Our committee did not receive testimony 
from the mayor of the District before we marked up this bill. And the 
Republicans have not introduced a national voucher bill because using 
taxpayer dollars to fund private schools is highly unpopular and has 
failed in every referendum placed on State ballots.
  Despite all of these arguments against the bill, to me, the most 
significant problem is that it diverts funds away from educational 
programs that help all of the District's 70,000 students. Instead, the 
bill would use a lottery system to award vouchers to send about 1.3 
percent of District students to private schools. I know there are 
Members on the other side of the aisle who are truly concerned about 
the education of our Nation's children, and they have a sincere desire 
to help students of the District of Columbia. But we should help all of 
the students. We should provide a high-quality education for all of 
them, and we should support continued improvements that raise all 
student achievement.
  I have said it over and over again: The greatest threat to our 
national security is the failure to properly educate every single one 
of our children, every one of them. We should not adopt a measure that 
spends $100 million so that about 1,000 students can go to private 
schools. And as a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of 
quality public education, as one who has sat on a charter school board, 
I

[[Page 4700]]

agree with the President's statement of the administration's policy 
which opposes creating or expanding a voucher program and asserts that 
the ``Federal Government should focus its attention and available 
resources on improving the quality of public schools for all 
students.'' Because this bill does not do that, I urge my colleagues to 
reject H.R. 471 in its current form.
  Mr. Speaker, later during this debate, my distinguished colleague 
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of 
Columbia, will offer an amendment to redirect funding for private 
schools to improve public education for all of the District's students. 
This amendment is a thoughtful improvement, and I urge all Members to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, this legislation 
that would reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This 
program was created in 2004 with bipartisan support. This program has 
provided an educational lifeline and meaningful choices to thousands of 
District families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Everyone agrees now that our educational system is broken. As we work 
to craft targeted reforms, we must support existing education programs 
that improve student achievement. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program is one such initiative with a proven track record of success. 
Over the past 7 years, this program has helped more than 3,000 low-
income children receive a high-quality education at the private school 
of their choice. The Department of Education's own research confirms 
the program's success in increasing graduation rates to more than 90 
percent in the low-income population of students previously trapped in 
underperforming schools.

                              {time}  1420

  Additionally, this scholarship program has improved parental 
involvement in education. Four consecutive studies have shown parents 
of program participants are more engaged in their children's education 
and more satisfied with their academic progress than parents of public 
school students.
  The evidence is clear, Mr. Speaker. This innovative program works and 
serves as a real alternative for parents who want to give their 
children the educational opportunities they never had. Yet, despite 
this proof, the administration and some in Congress are determined to 
destroy this groundbreaking program.
  Without the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, thousands of 
parents will be denied an opportunity to make decisions about their 
children's education. Equally troubling, thousands of children will be 
denied the opportunity to achieve their full potential, leaving them 
unequipped to succeed in a 21st century workforce. We must put children 
first and stop a vocal minority from taking vital opportunities away 
from thousands of D.C. families.
  The program has received widespread support from Washington 
residents, including three former Democratic Mayors, several members of 
the D.C. City Council, and thousands of students and parents. Congress 
cannot turn its back and deny students a chance, a chance for a better 
future.
  As our Nation fights to get back to the path to prosperity, we cannot 
afford to eliminate critical educational opportunities that will 
prepare our Nation's youth for tomorrow's workforce.
  All parents should be empowered to decide what school is best for 
their child. A quality education should not be a luxury available only 
to those who can afford it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his 
terrific help on all we have done on this bill.
  Let me count the ways I strongly oppose H.R. 471:
  Because it reestablished a program that failed to improve academic 
achievement as measured by standardized reading and math tests;
  Because it infringes on the local government's right to make 
decisions about quintessentially local education matters;
  Because it was introduced without so much as consultation with any 
elected official from the affected jurisdiction, the jurisdiction I 
represent;
  Because it provides Federal funds to send students to religious and 
other private schools, despite the absence of support for vouchers, as 
demonstrated by the failure of every State referendum to authorize 
vouchers, including two in California; and
  Because it increases the deficit by $300 million, violating the 
majority's own CutGo for discretionary authorization legislative 
protocols.
  Although I am a proud graduate of the D.C. Public Schools and 
strongly support our public schools, especially given their great 
improvement, I have always supported public charter alternatives for 
those parents who are dissatisfied with our traditional public schools. 
Children can't wait until public schools now in the throes of ``a race 
to the top'' meet the top.
  I'm proud that the District of Columbia has the largest charter 
school system in the United States of America, with almost half of our 
children attending. Parents and organizations in the District of 
Columbia have made this alternative, not the Congress of the United 
States.
  The existence and the phenomenal growth of our public charter schools 
has fueled the competition that has actually helped our public schools 
improve. The reason is because the charter schools and the public 
schools, unlike the voucher schools, are competing for the same local 
dollars.
  So, today, it is interesting to note that the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress found that the D.C. Public Schools have awakened 
to the competition, and now is the only one of 18 large urban school 
systems that showed improvement in the fourth and eighth-grade 
achievement tests over the past 2 years.
  Now, contrast this with what the Bush Education Department found for 
the very voucher program we will be voting on in H.R. 471, and I'm 
quoting:
  The Department of education found ``no conclusive evidence that the 
Opportunity Scholarship Program affected student achievement'' as 
measured by standardized reading and math tests. Yet the program was 
established precisely to measure and improve performance of the lowest 
achieving students in our schools.
  D.C. charter schools, however, outperform the D.C. public schools and 
greatly outperform the voucher schools. Our public charter schools at 
the middle and high school level, with a majority of economically 
disadvantaged students, scored almost twice as high as their D.C. 
Public School counterparts in math and reading, and the graduation rate 
of charter school students is 24 percent higher than the graduation 
rate of our traditional public high schools and 8 percent higher than 
the national average. Yet these public charter schools have a higher 
percentage of African American students and of disadvantaged students 
than our public schools.
  They are entirely accountable. They can be closed and, like public 
schools, they have been closed.
  With this remarkable record, why in the world would anyone pick the 
District of Columbia to impose a voucher program on, or target the only 
big school system that has set up an alternative public charter school 
system?
  If the majority were truly interested in our education agenda, 
instead of their own, they would do what former Speaker Newt Gingrich 
did. When he approached me about private school vouchers, I told him of 
public opposition to vouchers in the city, but not to charter schools, 
as demonstrated by a fledgling charter school program in the

[[Page 4701]]

District that had attracted few charters. And there was a District of 
Columbia charter school law. He worked with me, not against me, to 
introduce a bill----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I grant the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. NORTON. To introduce P.L. 104-134, which has helped us produce a 
large-scale robust alternative public school system that is now a model 
for the Nation.
  The pattern of this Congress could not be clearer. They began by 
stripping the District of Columbia of its vote. They have done nothing 
but try to take from the District of Columbia with bill after bill. Now 
they want to help us, against our will.
  We reject the insult of your help with the children of the District 
of Columbia. We are not second-class citizens. We are not children. If 
you want to help us, give us the courtesy, have the good grace to ask 
us how we want to be helped.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as it says in the Constitution, to exercise 
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District, and 
that is what we are doing.
  It gives me great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the whip of the House.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. As I listen to the debate, people want to 
know if anybody was asked. You realize that there are four times as 
many children who want a scholarship than there's one for? Those are 
the people we should ask. Those are the people who have been asked. 
Those are the people that have asked to be able to have a new life, a 
new direction and a hope that we all dream about in America.
  I will tell you, this morning, like almost every morning when I'm in 
Washington, D.C., we get that time, we call home. As a husband and a 
parent, I call my wife, and the first thing we talk about is our 
children. We talk about our children, about how they're feeling, how 
they're doing, but more importantly, how's their education--who are the 
latest and where they are going. It's the same question that every 
single parent that's a Member of this body asks. Every Member of this 
body that's a parent doesn't care about what they will become. You care 
about what your children will become.

                              {time}  1430

  The greatest opportunity you have for your children to expand all the 
dreams and hopes they have as an American is making sure they have the 
right education. But it is not just for a select few. We want to make 
sure everybody does.
  Last Congress, one of the toughest times I watched on this floor was 
the new Obama administration and the Democratic majority, where they 
worked to terminate this program to prevent new children from 
participating, and going so far as revoking 216 new children for a 
scholarship that had already been elected to the 2009-2010 school year. 
Not only was it unfair; it was unwise.
  We have an opportunity on this floor to do something different. We 
have an opportunity on this floor to actually make a correction. It is 
not a correction for you and me. It is a correction of a hope and a 
dream that a child can unleash and unshackle something that holds them 
back. It is a dream that they can rise to the occasion, they can have 
the foundation, they can have the ability that the country has always 
talked about. That is why I support the SOAR Act, because I believe 
these children can soar higher. I believe these children can reach a 
new dream, and I do not believe in holding them back.
  For all those who sit there and still want more, four to every one, I 
for one am going to join with them. Support this bill and support a new 
hope and dream. It is not about what we will become. It will be about 
what the next generation in America can achieve, and we want them to 
soar to new heights.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. In regards to what was just stated by the gentleman, we 
care about all these children. And it would be helpful if $5.7 billion 
was not slashed from the Pell Grants when these kids get to college.
  It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I thank the chair for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to say that I think 
this debate is a distraction. I have spent a lot of time visiting 
schools and talking with teachers and parents in my district, and this 
debate does nothing to address what they tell me they need.
  What they want is for us to work together to reauthorize the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act and to fix the things that we 
know are wrong with No Child Left Behind.
  If we care about improving their education, we should be working to 
make our system more flexible and less punitive, which is something 
that both sides of the aisle agree needs to happen.
  I urge my colleagues to come together to work on the pressing 
education issues: America's decline in international education 
rankings; unacceptable dropout rates and achievement gaps; and the need 
to create a smart, innovative workforce prepared for the jobs of 
tomorrow.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, no one has worked harder on this than my 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), 
to whom I yield 3 minutes.
  Mr. GOWDY. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of 
Oversight for his graciousness and leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, we have found consensus. Sweet, elusive consensus. We 
found it. Not in a final committee vote; that would be too much to ask. 
Not even in the testimony of the witnesses who came before the 
subcommittee. But we found consensus among the Members themselves, one 
after the other after the other who testified as to the power and the 
magic of education to transform not just their lives but generations of 
lives.
  I spoke with a distinguished Member from the other side of the aisle, 
a gentleman that I happen to like and respect very much and is one of 
the most powerful speakers in this body. And I will not call his name 
because the conversation was not public. But he recalled for me the day 
that he was sworn into office, and how his father came to him with 
tears streaming down his face. And some of the tears were the tears 
that only a father can have who is delighting in the success of a 
child. But some of the tears were also the acknowledgement that it 
could have been the father and not the son had the father not been born 
in the wrong town, at the wrong time, and in the wrong State, and, yes, 
in the eyes of our educational system of yesterday, the wrong race.
  It is that shared acknowledgement that education is the pathway to 
prosperity that makes me struggle with how someone can oppose this 
bill. The parents want it. They feel more vested. They feel like their 
children are safer.
  Mr. Speaker, you should have seen the parents that came and crossed 
political and cultural and racial lines to testify on behalf of this 
bill in the subcommittee. They want it desperately. The students want 
it. They feel safer. They feel like it's an educational environment 
that is conducive to their learning. Their test scores are higher. But 
even if they were not, their graduation rates are higher.
  As a former prosecutor who cannot remember the last high school 
graduate that I prosecuted, the simple fact that they are graduated 
from high school in and of itself is enough of a reason to support 
this. Educational achievement is higher. Educational attainment is 
higher.
  The parents want the same choices for their kids that the President 
of the United States and, indeed, most of us who are Members of 
Congress have for ours. Even the United States Department of Education 
once lauded this program as an example of something that works, until 
someone or something told them to think otherwise. The residents of the 
District of Columbia, again crossing racial, political

[[Page 4702]]

lines overwhelmingly support this program.
  And the most insidious argument is also the most demonstrably false, 
that somehow this program takes dollars away from the three-sectored 
approach that the District of Columbia uses. The public schools will 
still be funded. Their charter schools will still be funded. This just 
provides a third alternative, a third choice for parents who 
desperately want it and need it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. GOWDY. One of the reasons that public approval for our body is 
sometimes so historically low is we have a tendency to demagogue those 
with whom we disagree and we create false dichotomies. This bill is no 
more about the independence of the District of Columbia than anything 
else. The District of Columbia does not think twice before accepting 
Federal dollars for the public school system, the charter school 
system, or a host of other agendas. Nor does the District of Columbia 
think twice when it accepts Pell Grant monies that allow an 18-year-old 
to go to Georgetown, which is a private school, but will not allow a 
17-year-old to go to a private high school.
  Nor is this bill about whether or not someone believes in the public 
school system. I went to the public schools in South Carolina. My wife 
teaches in the public schools in South Carolina. And my son will 
graduate from the public schools in South Carolina. But I will miss his 
graduation, like many of you have missed things in your lives, because 
we will be in session.
  What I will not miss is the opportunity to throw a lifeline to kids 
who were born through the vicissitudes of life into poverty. We will 
give them the same choices and chances that we have had.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is not a false dichotomy when, through 
H.R. 1, $1.8 billion is being slashed from the Head Start budget, 
causing 218,220 Head Start students to not get a start.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman 
Danny Davis.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in opposition to H.R. 471, 
the D.C. voucher bill. While I share the same commitment to improving 
the quality of education here in D.C., in Chicago, and throughout the 
Nation, as a staunch supporter of public schools I strongly disagree 
with vouchering public dollars to private schools and institutions. I 
do not believe that the D.C. public schools should become experimental 
labs for the rest of the Nation. As I have stated previously on a 
number of occasions, paying for school vouchers translates into fewer 
taxpayer dollars for traditional public schools which have the 
responsibility to educate all, and I emphasize, all of the children.
  Improving public education in the District of Columbia, as in the 
rest of the Nation, has been and continues to be a long and arduous 
task. It is an absolute priority of mine. However, now is not the time 
to abandon our obligation to ensure top-notch public education for all 
students by shifting Federal dollars to private schools.
  I understand and commend the Federal Government for playing a 
critical role in providing the District with badly needed funding for 
improving education since 2004.

                              {time}  1440

  But I have never found any conclusive evidence that vouchers have 
increased achievement, nor have I seen any evidence in any study that 
an overall school district has improved as a result of vouchers. If the 
Federal Government is serious about improving the quality of education 
for the city's 70,000-plus deservedly young minds, then we should place 
our resources towards educational opportunities for all.
  I must add that in the District we have seen improvement during the 
last 2 and 3 years. And while we didn't seek any real testimony from 
the officials of the District of Columbia or school officials and 
students in public schools, we did hear from Delegate Eleanor Holmes 
Norton, whose thoughts represent the thinking of a large number of 
Washingtonians, and she has told us that continued investment in D.C.'s 
public school reform efforts will yield far greater benefits for the 
city as a whole rather than spending millions of dollars on less than 
2,000 students to attend private schools.
  I agree with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. She represents the 
thinking of the people of the District of Columbia. I urge that we vote 
down this voucher bill and support the amendment that will be presented 
by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to yield the customary 1 
minute to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), Speaker of the House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and let me start 
by also thanking him and the members of the Government Reform Committee 
for their work on this bill. Also I want to thank our 50 cosponsors and 
all the Members on both sides of the aisle who are standing with us 
today. I also appreciate the efforts of our colleagues in the Senate, 
particularly Senator Joe Lieberman, who are working on similar 
legislation.
  Today, the House will have the opportunity to do something special 
for the future of our country. I think just about every Member would 
agree that we have got to do everything we can to help our education 
system. Americans are concerned that their children won't be able to 
have the same blessings that they have had, and if we want to protect 
the American Dream, there is no substitute for a quality education.
  My view has always been that education reform starts with giving 
children a way out of our most underachieving public schools. Of 
course, that doesn't mean that we abandon those schools. It means we 
take some of the pressure off of them while they work to turn 
themselves around.
  So we came together here about 7 years ago and said let's try 
something different. Instead of just throwing money at the problem, 
let's empower parents from lower-income families to choose the schools 
that are best for them. We wouldn't deny any school money that they had 
already been receiving. We would be injecting freedom and competition 
into a system that is caught up in the status quo.
  We had a strong bipartisan coalition, including Anthony Williams, who 
was the Mayor here at the time, and Dick Armey, who for years led this 
fight in the House, paving the way for this program. He and I started 
working together on school choice in the early nineties when we served 
on the Education and Labor Committee together. We said let's give kids 
in our capital city a real chance at success and a real shot at the 
American Dream that they don't have. We thought to ourselves, what do 
we have to be afraid of? Well, as it turned out, there was nothing that 
we needed to be afraid of.
  Thousands of families have taken advantage of the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program, and there is strong evidence that it is both 
effective and cost-effective. Unfortunately, the education 
establishment in our country sees this Opportunity Scholarship Program 
as a threat. In reality, this is an opportunity to raise the bar, 
because competition makes everybody better. I think if you look beyond 
the talking points and focus on the facts, you will find that the D.C. 
program provides a model that can work in other communities around our 
Nation.
  Now, I think all of you know that this issue is important to me, but 
I will tell you this: This is not about me. I am proud to say that I 
have supported the Opportunity Scholarship Program from the get-go, but 
I am even more proud of the fact that I had nothing to do with its 
success. For that, we can thank the students and parents who have 
become more than the program's beneficiaries--they are its greatest 
ambassadors.
  In recent days, I have received letters from many of them asking 
Congress to do the right thing, and I will be submitting some of those 
for the Record. You see, they know what it was like before. They 
remember living just

[[Page 4703]]

blocks from great schools, but feeling miles away from them, and all 
they did was ask us to have a chance to have the same kind of education 
that kids down the street were getting. There is no controversial idea 
here. It is the American way.
  So if we are serious about bipartisan education reform, we should 
start by saving this successful bipartisan program that has helped so 
many underprivileged children here in D.C. get a chance at a quality 
education. I urge the House to support and save this important program.
                                                   March 29, 2011.
       Dear Speaker Boehner, I want to thank you for spending so 
     much time and energy on a cause that does not benefit you but 
     helps me and a lot other DC children.
       I was a lucky one. I had the opportunity to be a scholar 
     and it worked! I was accepted into Archbishop Carroll and 
     Bishop McNamara High School. I'm proud of my success. One day 
     I would like to attend Spellman College. When I get to 
     college I know it will be because of the solid foundation I 
     received in my elementary school. The foundation for my 
     future was possible because of my scholarship.
       Again, thank you for fighting to save the Opportunity 
     Scholarship. I know you care about us and I wish you a lot of 
     good luck!
           Sincerely,

                                                  Samaya Mack,

                                                        8th grade,
     St. Anthony Catholic School.
                                  ____

                                                   March 29, 2011.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, my name is Katherine Campos and I am a 
     recipient of the Opportunity Scholarship. I am an eighth 
     grader at Sacred Heart School and have received the 
     scholarship for the past six years.
       I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for 
     introducing the SOAR Act to Congress. I know that you really 
     believe in the Opportunity Scholarship and that means the 
     world to me. I believe in the scholarship, too.
       The scholarship has offered me an escape from some of the 
     harsher realities of the city. It has offered me a chance to 
     grow in my spirituality and academics because it allowed my 
     mom to choose Sacred Heart for me. My family is happy now 
     that I have a better chance of getting into a good high 
     school. Without the scholarship, I wouldn't be where I am 
     today and I wouldn't have as much hope for tomorrow. I know 
     that I am better prepared for a successful future because I 
     am a recipient of the Opportunity Scholarship.
       Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for all that you are doing to help 
     me and all the other scholarship recipients. You really do 
     make a difference in my world.
           Sincerely,

                                             Katherine Campos,

                                                        8th grade,
     Sacred Heart School.
                                  ____

                                                   March 29, 2011.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, We met for the first time at the State of 
     the Union. Remember you gave me advice on giving interviews? 
     Since then a lot of people have asked me about OSP and I just 
     wanted to say thank you, Mr. Speaker, for all of the hard 
     work you're putting into bringing back this Program. This 
     program has helped me and a lot of other DC children.
       Without this program I would not have attended St. Anthony 
     Catholic School and probably would not have achieved the 
     success I have. I love my school and am glad my parents had 
     the option to send me here.
       Since we met I am proud to share that I earned a full four 
     year academic scholarship to Gonzaga and will be going there 
     in the fall. This high school scholarship was possible 
     because the elementary school that my parents chose for me 
     provided me with a strong academic foundation. I know I will 
     do well in high school. And then, I plan to do well at Ohio 
     State University for college.
       I hope the SOAR Act passes so other kids will get the 
     chance I did. Thank you again!
           Sincerely,

                                                  Obi Mbanefo,

                                                        8th grade,
     St. Anthony Catholic School.
                                  ____

                                                   March 29, 2011.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, I am writing to thank you for never 
     giving up in your fight to restore the D.C. Opportunity 
     Scholarship Program.
       As a mother who has seen the benefits of the program first-
     hand, I can attest to the value of this program. Nico, my 
     nine year old son attends Naylor Road Private School on an 
     opportunity scholarship and is excelling in his small 
     classes. If Nico were unable to attend Naylor Road, he would 
     have been forced to attend a failing, underperforming school.
       I can also attest to the heartbreak of having my daughter's 
     scholarship revoked by President Obama's Secretary of 
     Education. My daughter Nia received an opportunity 
     scholarship in 2009 to attend the same school as her brother 
     and receive the same educational opportunities. But that is 
     no longer the case.
       My daughter was one of 216 students who received a letter 
     from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan retracting her 
     scholarship. Suddenly, I did not know where I was going to 
     send my daughter to school. I know that I will not send my 
     daughter to any of the schools in my area. While I have been 
     blessed by emergency, private scholarships to send Nia to 
     Naylor Road with her brother, I do not know if this support 
     will continue.
       As a single mother on disability, I am unable to work 
     enough to afford tuition. Education is the first priority in 
     my household, and this program allows my children to attend 
     safe schools and thrive.
       I can tell you that your work, and that of so many other 
     Members of Congress, has not gone unnoticed in the parts of 
     our city that many people too often ignore.
       For me, it will mean a quality education for my children. 
     It will also mean peace of mind, because I will know that my 
     children will not, one day, be separated--my son to attend a 
     safe and nurturing school, and my daughter, forced elsewhere.
       Please keep fighting for this program. Please. And I 
     encourage all Members of Congress to follow your lead in 
     voting YES for the SOAR Act. I know that with the chance to 
     thrive in better schools, my children will truly SOAR!
           Sincerely,
                                                  LaTasha Bennett.

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, most respectfully to our Speaker, I know 
his intentions are very good and honorable, and I wanted to be clear on 
this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that we care about every single 
child being educated and becoming all that God meant for them to be, 
too. That is why we oppose the $1.08 billion cut from Head Start in 
H.R. 1 and the $5.7 billion cut from the Federal Pell Grant program.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), the ranking member of the Education and Workforce 
Committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding. I thank him for his discussion of this legislation on the 
floor.
  I rise in opposition to this legislation because I don't believe that 
we can afford to spend $100 million on a program that in fact, in spite 
of what has been said on the other side, has been proven time and again 
to be ineffective and inefficient.
  Supporting our students, especially in poor minority communities, is 
the right thing to do, and particularly in this economy it is 
absolutely essential. But that is not what this bill does.
  If you really care about school reform, you want to help our 
students, our future, you do it in a sustainable and systematic way. 
You can't arbitrarily throw money at a small group of students and just 
hope against overwhelming evidence that your ideology somehow will work 
this time. You can't decide that only a handful of students deserve 
special attention. You can't ask Congress to vote for programs that the 
citizens of D.C. and the elected officials and the Mayor have not asked 
for. You certainly can't decide to continue a program that does not 
help students succeed.
  There are a number of concerns about this bill. First and most 
importantly, the program does not help the students succeed. Just 2 
weeks ago, the Republicans made harmful cuts in proven programs based 
upon purported standards of inefficiency, seeking to get rid of 
inefficient programs. If this is the standard, the D.C. voucher program 
fails the test.
  The D.C. voucher program does not increase student achievement or 
graduate students so they are prepared to go on to college or careers. 
In fact, four Department of Education studies over both administrations 
found that the voucher program has had no effect on the academic 
achievement of the voucher students.
  These findings are consistent with other private school voucher 
programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland. Just yesterday, the State test 
results showed that voucher students in Milwaukee's 20-year voucher 
program are actually performing similar or worse than other poor 
Milwaukee students. The study mandated by Congress about the D.C. 
voucher program says very clearly that the use of vouchers had no 
statistically significant impact on the overall student achievement in 
math or reading.

[[Page 4704]]

  So what is the purpose of the expenditure of this money, other than 
to prop up an inefficient, an ineffective, ideological point of view 
about how these students might learn? These students are not going to 
the schools that will change the outcomes.

                              {time}  1450

  These students are not graduating with a set of skills that will 
allow them to succeed in college or a career. But the fact of the 
matter is there are many public schools in the District of Columbia 
that are in fact achieving those goals that are working for those 
parents and for those students.
  The District of Columbia has open choice. Parents can go wherever. 
But we simply decided to take these Federal dollars and put it into a 
program on the belief that it works in spite of all of the evidence 
that it's not working for these students. So why are we paying a 
premium of another $100 million in taxpayers' money to pursue this 
effort when on its face it's not working? Yes, you've done telephone 
surveys of parents and they said, I think I made a good choice. Okay. 
You do telephone surveys of the students, Are you any safer? The answer 
is: No, we don't feel any safer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ additional minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. A great deal is made about the 
choice of these parents. It's to be honored and respected. What about 
the choice of the parents of Head Start students that made a choice to 
put their children into Head Start, in an effective program that makes 
a difference when they leave that program on whether or not they are 
school ready, whether or not they're prepared to proceed at fourth 
grade and eighth grade and tenth grade, those critical points when a 
student decides to drop out of school. Those parents who are making the 
choice about effective education for their children, they get cut, a 
quarter of a million of them. But if you make an ineffective choice and 
it's consistent with the ideology, you get funded.
  That's just not the way we should do business here, and that's not 
the way to do business in terms of school reform. That's not the way to 
help these children, and that's not the way to incentivize the other 
schools that are struggling to achieve better results, to achieve 
better success for their students.
  If you're going to say, We'll fund them, whether it's successful or 
not, we'll put a $100 million into it because it comports with our view 
of the constellations, that's just the wrong way to proceed in this 
effort for these children and for other children who will follow them.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Buerkle).
  Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, the Scholarships 
for Opportunity and Results Act, because today I stand here not only as 
a Member of Congress but also as a mother of six children and a 
grandmother of 11. I know from personal experience the process that 
parents follow when they're choosing which school is the best choice 
for their children. Each child has different needs, different 
strengths. And as a parent reaches out to make that choice, we can 
realize that school choice is not cookie cutter. It should not and it 
must not be. And who better to make that decision than the parents of 
that child? Who knows best the needs of that student? Certainly, not 
the government bureaucracy.
  The SOAR Act is about empowering parents to make the choice that's 
best for their own child. The Act is about giving them the freedom to 
pursue educational opportunities not available to them in failing 
public schools. The parents of the D.C. public school children deserve 
the same opportunities as Members of Congress, the Secretary of 
Education, and the President of the United States. Sadly, the parents 
of the children in the D.C. voucher program do not have the ability to 
pick up and move elsewhere for better public schools, and they can't 
afford private schools.
  The D.C. system needs substantial and sustained reform, but that 
reform process does not have to come at the expense of the children who 
live in the District. I stand here and I encourage my colleagues to 
support H.R. 471.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, our public schools need more resources, not less. This 
bill diverts funds that could be used for public schools into private 
school vouchers. Instead of helping public schools, the bill helps the 
privileged few who can both win the lottery and have the resources to 
pay the difference between the voucher and the cost of an education. 
That cost of education is usually more than just the tuition charged. 
So the recipient not only has to cover the whole tuition but also has 
to get access to a charity or a religious institution that would 
subsidize the cost of the education. Many who win the voucher lottery 
find that they can't even use the voucher because they can't afford the 
remaining cost of education.
  And so we've heard a lot about the so-called choice of a private 
school education. That choice is only available to those who win the 
voucher lottery. So it's not a choice. It's a chance. With that same 
logic we can solve the Social Security problem by just selling Lotto 
tickets. Those who win the Lotto will be much better off. But, of 
course, few will win. Likewise, 90 percent of those who seek a voucher 
will lose the voucher lottery, and so they don't have a choice. Even 
though they have chosen the lottery, they don't have the choice. They 
will remain in public schools. And those schools will be worse because 
the money has been diverted.
  The evidence now shows that even those who win the lottery may not be 
better off. Studies of the D.C. voucher program reveal that there's 
virtually no improvement in education. Furthermore, those the program 
was supposed to help are the ones that are benefiting. Those in failing 
schools represent a small portion of those who use vouchers. Many of 
those who use vouchers were already in private schools. And many more 
would have gone to private schools anyway.
  The schools that these children attend with vouchers are not covered 
by the same educational accountability standards as public schools, and 
the students and employees are not covered by the same civil rights 
protections. So we should defeat this bill and channel these funds into 
the public schools in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, sometimes you just hear something that's hard 
to believe. We're wasting money here in Washington. The American people 
are hearing it first here today.

                       [From the Washington Post]

     White House Ignores Evidence of How D.C. School Vouchers Work

       With the House poised to vote Wednesday on legislation to 
     reestablish a voucher program that allows low-income D.C. 
     students to attend private schools, the Obama administration 
     issued a strongly worded statement of opposition. The White 
     House of course has a right to its own opinion, as 
     wrongheaded as we believe it to be. It doesn't have a right 
     to make up facts.
       ``Rigorous evaluation over several years demonstrates that 
     the D.C. program has not yielded improved student achievement 
     by its scholarship recipients compared to other students in 
     D.C.,'' President Obama's Office of Management and Budget 
     proclaimed Tuesday, in response to H.R. 471, sponsored by 
     House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
       That dismissal might come as a surprise to Patrick J. Wolf, 
     the principal investigator who helped conduct the rigorous 
     studies of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and who 
     has more than a decade of experience evaluating school choice 
     programs.
       Here's what Mr. Wolf had to say about the program in Feb. 
     16 testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Operations. ``In my opinion, by demonstrating 
     statistically significant experimental impacts on boosting 
     high school graduation rates and generating a wealth of 
     evidence suggesting that students also benefited in reading 
     achievement, the DC OSP has accomplished what few educational

[[Page 4705]]

     interventions can claim: It markedly improved important 
     education outcomes for low-income inner-city students.''
       There are, we believe, other benefits to a program that 
     expands educational opportunities for disadvantaged children. 
     The program, which provides vouchers of $7,500 to low-income, 
     mainly minority students to attend private schools, is highly 
     regarded by parents, who often feel it allows their children 
     to attend safer schools or ones that strongly promote 
     achievement. Our view has never been that this voucher 
     program is a substitute for public school or public school 
     reform. But while that reform proceeds, scholarships allow a 
     few thousand poor children to escape failing schools and 
     exercise a right that middle-class parents take for granted--
     the right, and dignity, of choice.
       We understand the argument against using public funds for 
     private, and especially parochial, schools. But it is 
     parents, not government, choosing where to spend the 
     vouchers. Given that this program takes no money away from 
     public or public charter schools; that the administration 
     does not object to parents directing Pell grants to Notre 
     Dame or Georgetown; and that members of the administration 
     would never accept having to send their own children to 
     failing schools, we don't think the argument is very 
     persuasive. Maybe that's why an administration that promised 
     never to let ideology trump evidence is making an exception 
     in this case.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 30, 2011]

                 School Choice Is Not a Partisan Issue

                         (By Kevin P. Chavous)

       Seventy-four percent of people rarely agree on anything.
       In Pew poll in September, for instance, not even 60 percent 
     of Americans could correctly name Joe Biden as the vice 
     president. But here in Washington, there is overwhelming 
     consensus on something: education reform. More specifically--
     the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
       Indeed, 74 percent of city residents, multiple members of 
     the D.C. Council--including Chairman Kwame R. Brown--former 
     local Democratic elected officials like me and former mayor 
     Anthony A. Williams, and thousands of parents, students and 
     other activists all support the Scholarships for Opportunity 
     and Results (SOAR) Act, set for a vote in the House today. 
     This legislation would reauthorize the Opportunity 
     Scholarship Program, a federally funded initiative that 
     provides low-income children with money to attend private 
     schools. It would also infuse the District's traditional 
     public and public charter schools with $40 million in 
     additional funding per year.
       It's a smart, well-constructed plan. But if we were to 
     listen only to the national narrative surrounding school 
     choice in the District, it would seem as if all of the 
     program's supporters were Republicans and none of them have 
     any connection to the city besides happening to work here on 
     weekdays.
       In reality, local support for returning all options to the 
     District's low-income children comes from all corners of the 
     city. After years of divisive battles over the creation of 
     the program, its destruction in 2009, and its path toward 
     resurrection in the current Congress, there is wide support 
     among local leaders for the view that reauthorizing the 
     program will be beneficial for students and families, as well 
     as all three education sectors serving children in the city. 
     Even Mayor Vincent Gray has in the past expressed support for 
     the three-sector federal initiative, and it was noteworthy 
     that he was not critical of the voucher program itself--
     emphasizing instead home-rule issues and the success of the 
     city's public and charter schools--in his lone Capitol Hill 
     appearance to testify on the reauthorization bill.
       The only significant local opposition comes from D.C. Del. 
     Eleanor Holmes Norton, who claimed at a House oversight 
     hearing on the SOAR Act that providing educational options 
     for low-income students was somehow a ploy by Republicans to 
     use District children to further a set of ``ideological 
     preferences'' by dismissing the ``independent, self-
     governing'' nature of Washington.
       But if the city is to truly be self-governing as its 
     representative suggests she wants, Norton and other 
     scholarship opponents must do what they so often criticize 
     others for not doing. They must listen to the city's 
     residents.
       The only common ideology among supporters of the 
     Opportunity Scholarship Program is that it's the right thing 
     to do. Parents of the 91 percent of program participants who 
     graduate from high school know that, as do the parents of 
     students who have seen their children increase their reading 
     scores through the program. These are certainly many of the 
     same people who elected Norton to her 11th term as their 
     representative in Congress with 89 percent of the vote in 
     November.
       This is not, as pundits often contend, a partisan issue. 
     The large majority of the city's residents are Democrats--
     myself included--and we believe in a set of core values that 
     are consistent with both Democratic ideals and a more 
     fundamental set of ideals rooted in the belief that all 
     children deserve a chance to receive a quality education by 
     any means necessary.
       And we're tired of seeing opponents of school choice use 
     traditional party breakdowns as cover for opposition to a 
     program that works or use disparaging language about the 
     intentions of the other side. The fact of the matter is that 
     those who continue to fight for this program want what's best 
     for the District's children, and there is a simple reason why 
     a city full of Democrats want to bring the Opportunity 
     Scholarship Program back to the nation's capital: It's the 
     right thing to do.
                                  ____


                     [From Politico, Mar. 30, 2011]

                  Giving Students a Chance at Success

   (By Rep. Darrell Issa and Rep. John Kline and Rep. Harold Rogers)

       The House is due to vote Wednesday on reinstating the 
     Opportunity Scholarship Program for the District of Columbia.
       This is a critical education reform that can offer low-
     income students and their parents the chance to break out of 
     low-performing public schools and receive a quality 
     education. The reauthorized program would give an annual 
     voucher of $8,000 for elementary students and $12,000 for 
     secondary students within 185 percent of the poverty line. It 
     could make it possible for thousands of district school 
     children to prepare for college at the competitive private 
     school of their choice.
       But it is not just about helping one city's schoolchildren. 
     This is part of a larger national conversation about school 
     reform. Across the country, an increasing number of states 
     are looking for ways to break the cycle of low graduation 
     rates and substandard public education to give under-
     privileged students an educational environment where they can 
     succeed.
       Opponents of school choice represent some of the most 
     powerful special interests in the country. Teachers unions, 
     for example, have long opposed school choice and have tried 
     to block voucher programs like the DC Opportunity 
     Scholarship. It was pressure from these groups that 
     influenced President Barack Obama's decision to end the DC 
     scholarship two years ago. This injustice must be corrected.
       The success of school choice programs like this one--which 
     was originally passed in 2004--is convincing. Parental 
     satisfaction for scholarship recipients far exceeds that of 
     parents whose children are trapped in failing public schools.
       Students in the Washington program who get to attend 
     better-performing private schools in the District are 
     approximately three months ahead in reading ability, compared 
     to non-scholarship students. Graduation rates for scholarship 
     recipients are more than 30 percentage points higher than 
     others in the district's public schools.
       These programs enjoy widespread support among those 
     involved. Almost 75 percent of D.C. residents believe the 
     Opportunity Scholarship Program's success deserves 
     reauthorization, according to a recent poll by the American 
     Federation of Children. The D.C. City Council chairman, Kwame 
     Brown, favors continuing the program, as do two former 
     Washington mayors.
       Growing bipartisan support in Congress means Democrats and 
     Republicans can work together to help underprivileged 
     students in Washington--which is Congress's responsibility 
     under the Constitution.
       School choice programs, like the DC Opportunity 
     Scholarship, strengthen public education systems by offering 
     greater competition. A study by economist David Figlio of 
     Northwestern University demonstrated that similar school 
     choice programs in other parts of the country have improved 
     public education.
       In fact, no study to date has suggested school choice hurts 
     student achievement in public schools.
       Everyone benefits from the success of these school choice 
     programs. High-performing students are better-equipped for a 
     college education. College graduates are better prepared for 
     well-paying jobs.
       In this economy, Congress should be doing everything it can 
     to give the next generation of lawyers, doctors, teachers, 
     engineers and entrepreneurs a chance to suceed. School choice 
     is a critical part of the path to success.
       Support for school choice is about providing immediate 
     assistance for parents and their children--many of whom now 
     wait years to get into charter schools. In many cases, these 
     parents know that their kids attend some of the nation's 
     worst public schools, with some of the highest rates of drug 
     use and crime. No parent should be forced to keep their 
     children in unsafe schools that fail to provide a quality 
     education.
       We can think of no reason why Washington students should 
     wait for long-term public school reform when immediate relief 
     is now possible.
       Reauthorizing the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program can 
     open the doors to success for thousands of students living in 
     the shadow of their nation's Capitol. More than that, it 
     provides an example for states across the country to follow 
     as they seek to reform a broken system of public education.

  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar.
  Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 4706]]

  Our children are being let down. Our education system is no longer 
the world's best. In the District of Columbia, they are facing an 
education crisis like none other in our country. According to some 
experts, the D.C. public schools spend over $20,000 per year on each 
and every student. Despite this, D.C. students perform the worst when 
compared to all 50 States. One study found that only 13 percent of 
eighth-graders in the D.C. public schools were proficient in reading. 
This must change.
  You may be wondering, Why is Congress focusing on just the D.C. 
schools today? That is because the D.C. public schools are unique, in 
that under the Constitution, Congress has the sole responsibility to 
govern over the District of Columbia. With that in mind, it is our 
responsibility to ensure that we no longer allow these students to slip 
through the cracks. That is why I'm urging my colleagues to support 
H.R. 471, the SOAR Act. This bill allows low-income D.C. students a 
scholarship to attend a school of their parents' choice. Seventy-four 
percent of parents in D.C. support this plan because that has achieved 
real results.
  While I believe education is best decided on the local level, 
Congress is constitutionally obligated to fund D.C. students and their 
education. That is why we must give parents the choice as to where 
their children will attend school. We can't afford to continue to 
ignore these students. They deserve a chance to attend better schools 
that achieve greater results.
  Today, we have a golden opportunity to make D.C. public schools 
better. Today, we have an opportunity to help students in the lowest-
achieving school district in the country. Today, we can give D.C. 
students an opportunity to succeed and pursue their dreams. Join me in 
supporting H.R. 471.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
bill to expand the failed private school voucher program in Washington, 
D.C. In this time of budget strife and cutbacks for public school 
districts all across the country, this is the wrong time to take 
Federal money away from public schools and give it to private schools.
  When I evaluate education or any other policy, I want to see the 
research on what works. Despite claims that the D.C. voucher system 
would improve academic achievement of D.C. students, multiple 
congressionally mandated Department of Education studies have concluded 
that the program has not improved these students' academic achievement 
in reading or math.

                              {time}  1500

  Further, the studies found the voucher program to have had no effect 
on student satisfaction, engagement, motivation, or students' feelings 
of security. The studies found no significant impact on students' 
career aspirations, participation in extracurricular activities, 
homework completion, reading for fun, or tardiness. Students with 
special education needs, English language learners, and gifted students 
in the voucher program were less likely to have access to key services 
than their peers in public school.
  Despite receiving public money under the D.C. voucher program, these 
private schools do not take all students. In addition, teachers at 
these private schools are not subject to the same certification 
requirements as those in D.C. public schools.
  This bill also makes an exception to the majority's own budget rules, 
which require that all legislation proposing new funding must slash 
funding from somewhere else. This bill adds $300 million to the deficit 
without any such offset. These kinds of exceptions make a mockery of 
their own rules, particularly when there is little evidence to support 
the underlying bill, itself.
  I understand that many voucher supporters are disappointed with the 
quality of our public schools. This says to me that there is common 
ground for Members from both sides of the aisle to improve our public 
schools. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. ISSA. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is a fascinating discussion we are having here. The gentleman 
who spoke a while ago said, because this is a lottery and because not 
every one of the children who wants in this program can get in the 
program, it represents not a choice but a chance. I can tell you a lot 
of these kids will settle for a chance. I mean, give them a chance. 
Give them a choice, a chance, whatever. Just give them the opportunity, 
however slim it might be. The fact that they only have a chance and 
that not all of them can get in the program speaks about the demand for 
the program. It speaks about how many people actually need it and value 
it and want it, and we ought to expand it further and give more 
individuals a chance.
  I live in an area where there are pretty good public schools. My 
children--I have five of them--have either been in the public schools 
or are currently in the public schools. Those public schools are better 
because of the competition around them. We have a robust charter school 
program in Arizona. There are lots of them around. There are many 
choices for kids to have. The public schools my kids attend are better 
for it, and the same will hold true in D.C. as well.
  If you want to improve the public schools where most children 
typically attend, then offer a choice and a chance. Competition and 
accountability does that. It does it all across the economy. It does it 
in every other phase of our lives. Why we say it won't happen in public 
education is just beyond me.
  So I commend those who have put this bill forward. I wholeheartedly 
support it. I was involved several years ago in crafting the original 
one, and I am very pleased to support this today. This will be good for 
all kids.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great excitement. My Republican 
colleagues have made a vow to offset new spending, but they found a 
cause worthy enough to bypass this promise.
  My Republican colleagues have rallied behind the SOAR Act, a $300 
million bill without an offset. Reportedly, the goal of the bill is to 
give ``all students a shot to win the future'' by ``restoring hope'' 
and ``building stronger public schools.'' This is truly encouraging as 
it matches my goals as well as those of many of my Democratic 
colleagues. However, I strongly disagree with the proposed solution. 
The $300 million bill will continue the D.C. Opportunities Scholarship 
Program, which was ineffective.
  Department of Education reports show the voucher program had no 
statistically significant impact on overall student achievement, 
aspirations for the future, the frequency of doing homework, or 
attendance or tardiness rates. Further, although built on the premise 
of choice, voucher schools can and do reject students based on prior 
academic achievement, economic background, English language ability, or 
disciplinary history, which significantly limits choice.
  This $300 million program, which has proven ineffective, is not the 
solution for the intended goal. To reach this goal, we can begin by 
repealing the H.R. 1 cuts to programs that remove barriers for low-
income students, such as title I programs, Head Start and TRIO.
  I urge my colleagues who are truly invested in the goal to reject 
these cuts to key education programs and to oppose the SOAR Act.
  Earlier, I heard one of the persons on the other side talk about 
persons who support vouchers in D.C. Most of the political persons who 
support it either were defeated or have left and have no more say.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 4707]]

  Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of talk, and it seems like most of the 
talk is about how we are being unfair to the District of Columbia by 
giving them money that, in fact, they don't really need. Let me just be 
candid. The District of Columbia gets all the other Federal money that 
the States get and other cities. This is additional money, but here is 
the amazing fact:
  Depending upon whose figures you use, for each student in the 
District of Columbia, they spend between $17,000 and $28,000 per 
student. Cato says $28,000. We'll take the District at $17,000. These 
Opportunity Scholarships go between $7,500 and $12,000. I'll agree that 
perhaps some of those students would have gone to a parochial or to a 
private school otherwise; but for those who leave the public school to 
take advantage of this scholarship, they leave all $28,000 behind; and 
they leave with $7,500 in opportunity and some parent who cares enough 
to find a way to make up the rest if there is additional cost. Many of 
the parochial schools mentioned that are high school equivalents of 
Georgetown--except they're not getting Pell Grants; they're getting 
this grant--in fact, take this as the entire payment.
  So the truth is that this is a gift to the District of Columbia in 
several ways, and I want it understood here today: when you look at the 
ranking of all of the States, if the District of Columbia were a State, 
it would be 51st. If you rank it against the top 50 inner cities, it's 
still only around 22nd. It is a failed school system with the second 
highest amount, by their own figures, per capita spent on students. If 
you take Cato's figures, they're far and away the most expensive public 
schools anywhere in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, we've had a lot of talk about how Republicans are cruel 
because we're funding less than the Democrats would like, and we're 
actually funding less on this program than they would have. The 
difference is they were simply handing $75 million a year for the next 
5 years, or at least for this year, to the public schools, with no 
strings attached, while, in fact, we are breaking it into three pots of 
$20 million in order to allow the public school to get something.
  The Speaker, in this bill, believes strongly they should get 
something so they're net better off. There is another $20 million so 
that children can go to charter schools. Let's understand something. If 
you go to the public school, they say you have choice, but the regular 
public schools have districts, boundaries. You can't exceed them. Going 
to a charter school gives you an opportunity to cross town for the 
school of your choice. The last 20, a mere $20 million out of hundreds 
of millions of dollars, in fact, goes to these few lottery winners.
  The gentleman on the other side of the aisle--and rightfully so--said 
it's a lottery. Yet as a former businessman--and I don't call myself a 
recovering businessman because I hope to never forget the lessons I 
learned in business--if you came to the State of California and said, 
We'll give you, whether it was $60 million or $600 million, but you've 
got to take a small amount of that and put it out for lotteries, and if 
you asked the voters in California would they take it, you'd get the 
same 74 to 80 percent absolute approval. If it were absolutely new 
money, they would.

                              {time}  1510

  But if you went to a businessman, if you went to somebody who had to 
understand how to make a dollar go further, there's no question what 
you would find is--let's do the math. I spend between $17,000 and 
$28,000 on each student; $7,500 in expanding these Opportunity 
Scholarships. If they were to use their own in-district money, for 
every time they hand out $7,500, they would leave themselves over 
$17,000. It means that every student who remained would have more 
dollars.
  The fact is, it's a self-inflicted wound for the District of Columbia 
not just to take all of this money but to take additional money because 
every student who exits is an opportunity to have more for those who 
stay, but that's not the way public education thinks. It thinks in 
terms of how much do I get per student, how many union teachers do I 
make sure I employ, how much union dues do I get.
  I'm sorry, but that's not way the rest of America thinks. It's not 
the way the Speaker thinks when he crafted a bill that was incredibly 
fair to the District of Columbia and fair to many of the students who, 
yes, have an opportunity to get these few scholarships; and God help 
us, I just wish there were more because they wish there were more.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the majority has been obsessed with 
depriving the District of Columbia of its home-rule rights ever since 
this Congress opened. They have come now with their choice, their 
preference, for the people I represent. If, in fact, the majority is 
correct that this program has been so effective, I ask you why you have 
not brought a national voucher bill to the floor so that your 
constituents could have the very same thing my constituents have? I 
know why. It's the height of hypocrisy to put it on us and not bring a 
bill to the floor to give the same wonderful, wonderful opportunity to 
your own people.
  I have a home-rule agenda in the amendment coming up. I challenge 
you, I challenge you to bring a national voucher bill to the floor this 
session.
  Mr. ISSA. I would like to inquire of the minority, do you have 
additional speakers at this time?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. No, I do not.
  Mr. ISSA. Then are you prepared to close?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ISSA. Then I will reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Might I inquire how much time each side has.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. The ranking member said that basically 
this is a gift to the District of Columbia, and you know, the chairman 
of the committee--and I would appreciate it if he would take into 
consideration--while handing the District of Columbia $20 million in 
vouchers, H.R. 1, which he voted for, would take from the District of 
Columbia now $2.39 million from the D.C.'s title I funding, $500,000 
for the funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. This 
is just from the District of Columbia; $23.5 million from Pell Grants 
so that when these kids get through the system like he just said, they 
would be able to have some money to go to school; but H.R. 1 takes away 
$845 per year. That's a lot of money for a college student. $5.7 
million from Federal supplemental educational opportunity grants, $3.92 
million from Head Start programs which would disallow 700 Head Start 
students from going to Head Start.
  So when you talk about giving a gift, I mean, that's one thing; but 
just in Pell Grants alone you've taken away from the very people that 
you say you support.
  And, you know, let's just be fair about this. Mr. Speaker, this is 
about every child. I've said it in committee, and I'll say it again. 
There is nobody on this side of the aisle who wants more for every 
child to have an education and have a good education than we do; and so 
hopefully this matter will be resolved, but this is not the way to do 
it.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, there has been a lot of talk about H.R. 1, and I think 
that's a bigger picture than what we're looking at here today; but it 
should be considered.
  Republicans offered on this floor, and passed without the support for 
the most part of the other party, a continuing resolution. We have been 
responsible in trying to fund the government, and we tried to fund the 
government at over 90-some percent of what

[[Page 4708]]

it would have been funded had the majority not changed and certainly at 
or above 2008 levels.
  But that bill died in the Senate. Everything seems to have died in 
the Senate. And yet it can be demagogued as though we've cut, but you 
can't cut what you haven't done and you can't cut what you haven't 
offered an alternative for. We cut what was already on the book: $75 
million to $60 million.
  We did decide, the Speaker's leadership, that we were going to keep 
this program which we believe works. At $20 million, it's just a fairly 
large pilot program. As one of the speakers on the Democratic side so 
aptly said, you have to win the lottery, there aren't enough slots. 
You're right, there aren't enough opportunities for the District of 
Columbia. But unlike what the gentlelady, the Delegate from the 
District of Columbia said, we don't have an authority to go out and do 
this as a national referendum; but more importantly, we don't have the 
money. This is more a matter of showing the benefit to States which may 
or may not choose and giving an opportunity to one of the worst school 
systems, most failed school systems in the Nation.
  Students in the District of Columbia in math and science and reading 
are typically 51st when compared to the 50 States. This is, in fact, a 
difficult area if you happen to be a student in this District. If 
you're like the President's family or his predecessor or his 
predecessor or his predecessor, if they have school-age children, they 
don't go to public school. They go to private school. That's pretty 
well-known.
  But private school offers opportunities and it offers choice; and, 
Mr. Speaker, this $20 million per year of special funding for 
Opportunity Scholarships is all we're talking about today. One of the 
speakers, rightfully so, called it $100 million over 5 years. The 
Delegate from the District of Columbia called it $300 million, but she 
was forgetting the other $200 million goes right where she wants it to 
go. The only thing we're debating is over 5 years will $100 million go 
to Opportunity Scholarships that don't basically go to union 
schoolteachers that are failing the students in a system that is 
failing.
  We just lost the head of education here, Ms. Rhee; and, in fact, part 
of the reason she left was she saw a new administration that didn't 
seem to live up to the high expectations that the previous one did. 
That's a local matter. That's local control and local rule. We're not 
preempting that. They have a right to fail, and they are failing; but 
Congress has a right to at least intervene.
  And in closing, what I want the Speaker to understand and America to 
understand is in 1996, when chartered public schools were authorized in 
the District, it was authorized by my predecessor on the Republican 
side, Mr. Davis. He got it in and got it funded, and he got it made law 
over the objection at that time of the people of the District. We've 
looked through our records and can find no broad support for this 
mandate. The District did not do chartered public schools on their own. 
They did it with an act of Congress, with help.
  I believe they should take the same suggestion. If they want to 
choose to disagree with the conservative extreme Washington Post, so be 
it, but I think they have to begin to look at themselves more deeply, 
at those that they actually represent, those who voted for them but did 
not vote to have this money rejected.
  I urge strong support for this bill, for this opportunity for the few 
who win the lottery.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on 
H.R. 471, a bill to make Congress the de-facto School Board for the 
District of Columbia. This legislation, introduced without a hint of 
irony by self-proclaimed small-government conservatives, would 
authorize $60 million in federal taxpayer subsidies for private schools 
in the District of Columbia. The same party that just cut $1.2 billion 
in Head Start funding for Americans across the country will readily 
transfer tax money from all Americans to the District of Columbia. 
Moreover, the concern expressed today for District of Columbia students 
rings hollow in light of the Republicans' repeal of voting rights of 
the Delegate from the District of Columbia, which occurred in the first 
vote this session. Thus, this legislation is hypocritical on three 
levels, as it represents federal intrusion in local affairs, a federal 
spending increase in D.C. in contrast to nationwide education funding 
cuts, and disingenuous concern for the welfare of D.C. residents.
  Although H.R. 471 is blatantly inconsistent with Republicans' alleged 
fealty to fiscal conservativism and federalism, it is quite consistent 
with Republicans' ideologically driven efforts to unravel public 
education. This bill is not about providing educational alternatives 
for students: It is about defunding public schools and gutting 
teachers' unions. Does this sound familiar? Middle class Americans are 
attempting to survive a similar assault by Republican governors and 
state legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio. Ultimately, this bill isn't 
even about vouchers, but rather about power. There is not any 
compelling data that vouchers work, after all, while there are several 
studies suggesting that, at best, they divert resources and talented 
students from public schools. But whether vouchers work or not is 
irrelevant to the party whose goal is elimination of the public 
education system as we know it, for vouchers are just a means to that 
end.
  Educational policy should put students first rather than sacrifice 
them for ideological objectives. H.R. 471 would make District of 
Columbia students lab rats in a Republican experiment to gut public 
education and replace it with an unproven alternative. H.R. 471 makes a 
mockery of Republican commitments to federalism and fiscal 
conservativism, even as it belies their callousness to the welfare of 
their own constituents.
  Finally, my colleagues should be aware that this bill did not pass 
out of the Oversight and Reform Committee without controversy. 
Congressman Platts of Pennsylvania made what may have been the most 
articulate speech in opposition to the bill. He reminded us that even 
if vouchers did work--and there's no evidence they do--they would still 
abandon the rest of our students. Mr. Platts called on all of us to 
work toward an education system that helps all students succeed, and I 
would hope that we could identify that as our objective rather than 
diverting money from public schools through vouchers.
  I urge my colleagues to put students first and vote against H.R. 471.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 471, 
the DC voucher bill. I opposed the creation of the DC Voucher Program 
when it came before the House in the 108th Congress and I oppose 
today's bill that would extend this unsuccessful program. As a mother 
and a former educator, I understand the desire and the value of giving 
children the best educational opportunities. That is not what this bill 
would do.
  This program has neither the same accountability standards for 
improving student academic achievement as public schools nor do 
students in the program have the same civil rights protections as 
students in public schools. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) 
evaluated the Washington, DC voucher program in both the Bush and Obama 
Administrations and issued reports indicating the program was 
ineffective and has not lived up to its promises. In its 2010 Final 
Report, the ED concluded that the use of a voucher had no statistically 
significant impact on overall student achievement in reading and math. 
There also is concern that students in the voucher program who have 
special needs, including those with learning disabilities and those in 
ESL courses, do not have access to programs or resources to address 
these needs.
  Unlike our nation's public schools, the private schools in the DC 
voucher program are not accountable for the public dollars they 
receive. In 2007, GAO issued a report on the DC voucher program 
documenting concerns with the accountability of the program operator, 
questioning whether the operator has sufficient oversight to govern the 
use of federal funds. Furthermore, the GAO report found that this 
program does not proportionally reach the students it is meant to 
target, those from schools in need of improvement. It also raised 
concerns that many teachers in the voucher program do not have adequate 
educational attainment or certification to teach.
  This bill extends and expands the only federally funded voucher 
program in the U.S. At a time when the utmost fiscal responsibility is 
needed, and especially when our public schools are facing giant cuts, 
we should not be wasting money on programs that do not work and fail 
our students. My colleagues who support this bill have neither paid for 
the $300 million cost nor have they kept to their own legislative rules 
by making the cost offset by cuts to other programs. This voucher 
program is clearly not the best use of federal taxpayer dollars and 
does not provide the youth of our nation's capital with the best 
learning opportunities.

[[Page 4709]]

  I fully support measures that encourage our children and youth to 
rise to new heights. However, this legislation extends a program that 
does not do what the title suggests and usurps DC's prerogative of 
self-governance. Congress should be focusing on providing the best 
educational resources to youth from every part of our nation. I repeat, 
that is not what this bill would do. I oppose H.R. 471.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (SOAR Act).
  This bipartisan bill, which I am proud to co-sponsor, reauthorizes 
the incredibly successful District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship 
Program, which provides low-income D.C. children an opportunity to 
compete for a scholarship to attend the private school of their choice. 
Last year, after half a decade of increased graduation rates and 
opportunities for a better life, the current Administration 
unilaterally rescinded the Opportunity Scholarships that had been 
promised to 216 children. This is unacceptable. The SOAR Act renews the 
Opportunity Scholarship Program to again provide low-income children 
and their parents the opportunity to choose what educational 
environment suits them best.
  Additionally, in recognition that not every child will be able to 
earn an Opportunity Scholarship, the SOAR Act also invests equally into 
the D.C. public and charter school systems. For far too long, the D.C. 
public school system has under-promised and under-performed, leaving 
children's educational future dependent on their zip code. Giving 
students and their parents the opportunity to choose what learning 
environment is best--whether it is a private, charter, or public 
school--should be the standard, not the exception.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the SOAR Act because it takes 
an all of the above approach to improving educational opportunities for 
low-income children in our Nation's capital.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 471. This bill 
provides $300 million in unfunded appropriations at a time when the 
same leadership that is advancing this bill has told us that cuts to 
education programs, like Head Start and Pell grants, that affect 
students around the country, are a fiscal necessity.
  The Majority is pushing an ideological agenda designed to satisfy 
their base framed as an effort to improve the lives of children in the 
District.
  While Congress retains an oversight role over the District of 
Columbia, D.C. should not be treated as a petri dish for conservative 
ideas that are opposed by the voters in the District.
  There have been two major studies of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
program.
  The first found ``no conclusive evidence'' that the vouchers program 
affected student achievement.
  The second found that while math scores did not improve, there was a 
modest improvement in reading. Unfortunately, those gains occurred 
strictly for those students who came from the least troubled D.C. 
schools and scored the highest on the baseline test.
  Unfortunately, this program has failed to help those who need it the 
most.
  Critically, the gains in student achievement witnessed in the 
vouchers program do not match those achieved by the District's charter 
schools. If this body is truly interested in supporting effective 
school choice and education reform in D.C., we should focus on funding 
to reduce long waiting lists for the best charter schools.
  Congresswoman Norton, the only Member of this House democratically 
accountable to the parents and students of the District, has offered a 
substitute amendment which would divide the funding equally between 
DCPS and the city's charter schools. I will support the substitute.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 471, a 
bill that would resurrect the failed District of Columbia school 
voucher program. This legislation is nothing more than a pet project of 
the Republican majority that has not proven successful for students or 
popular with the American people. This is the same majority that just 
last month voted to cut $5 billion in education funding, potentially 
hurting students all across this country. Now they want to spend $300 
million on a program that serves only a handful of students, and 
doesn't even serve those few students well.
  Evaluations of the former D.C. voucher program by the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Education found no 
statistically significant effects on student achievement. GAO also 
found that the program was poorly managed, concluding that, 
``accountability and internal control were inadequate.'' Subsidizing 
private schools undermines public education in the District of Columbia 
by shifting resources to private and religious schools, rather than 
working on ideas for real reform in our public schools.
  This bill also violates the District's right to home rule by using 
its school systems for a federally funded social experiment. As a 
former chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, I am well 
aware of the long struggle the District has waged for self-
determination and a voting member of Congress. Unfortunately, instead 
of moving legislation to enfranchise the people of the District, we are 
voting today to impose more ideological mandates on the city.
  Public opinion is not in favor of taxpayer-funded school voucher 
programs. They consistently fail when they are brought up in state 
referendums. A majority of Americans do not approve of the idea under 
any circumstances, and as many as 70 percent are against vouchers if 
they take money away from public schools.
  Vouchers don't work, they hurt public schools, and Americans do not 
support them. I urge all of my colleagues to stand with the District of 
Columbia and oppose this legislation.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 471. 
Today's vote comes just weeks after House Republicans brought a 
Continuing Resolution to the floor to slash billions from public 
education programs--legislation that would cut Head Start slots, reduce 
critical support to thousands of schools, and decrease afterschool 
services at high-poverty and low-performing schools. My colleagues 
across the aisle argued that we simply cannot afford these investments 
in our nation's children.
  But today, the Majority brings to the floor a bill to provide private 
school vouchers in the District of Columbia. This bill adds $300 
million to the deficit, a violation of their own new ``Cut-Go'' rule 
that requires offsets for all new spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I support investments in education. We all want our 
children to have the opportunity to succeed. But we should be using 
public funds to improve our public schools first. And it is totally 
hypocritical to have a vote one month to cut public school funding 
under the guise of deficit reduction and vote the next month to 
increase the deficit to support some schools over all others. I urge my 
colleagues oppose this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
``Scholarship for Opportunity and Results Act'' H.R. 471. Private 
school vouchers are not an effective way to improve student 
achievement.
  I do not support private school voucher programs. Not only do these 
programs sometimes blur the line between church and state, but there is 
also little evidence that this type of reform actually helps students. 
In fact, I am very concerned that vouchers do nothing more than drain 
money out of our public school system, especially from the schools that 
need the most financial assistance from the federal government.
  In 2004, I opposed the creation District of Columbia's private school 
voucher program and I have repeatedly voted against proposals to use 
federal funds to support voucher programs. H.R. 471 seeks to bring back 
to life a failed voucher program that Congress has already voted to 
end.
  The bill before us today would spend another $100 million on a 
program that the evidence tells us does not work. Four separate U.S. 
Department of Education reports found that that the DC voucher program 
had no statistically significant effect on reading or math achievement. 
So why are we spending more today when the evidence is clear? We must 
not put ideology ahead of evidence. We must make decisions after 
weighing the evidence. If you do that, then you will oppose new funding 
for private school vouchers.
  Further, this bill does nothing to help American students in the 
other 50 states. Parents, teachers, students, and school officials 
across New Jersey want to know what we are doing to address their 
needs. Why are we only talking about students in the District of 
Columbia?
  I will continue to voice my opposition to this and other voucher 
programs that divert needed resources from our public schools and urge 
rejection of this measure.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 471, the so-called Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act.
  When Republicans took over the House majority in January, they 
promised to uphold the Constitution--even going so far as to read it on 
the House Floor.
  They also pledged to reduce the deficit by fully offsetting any new 
discretionary spending. But the ideological legislation offered today 
breaks both promises.
  It also continues to push the extreme and reckless social agenda of 
the majority while

[[Page 4710]]

failing to offer any bill to create much-needed jobs.
  As I have said before on this Floor, it is not enough to simply read 
the Constitution, but to abide by it, and carry out its charge. This 
bill violates a fundamental principle enshrined in the First Amendment 
of the Constitution--the Establishment Clause.
  This ``wall of separation,'' as Thomas Jefferson so famously put it, 
is ripped asunder by H.R. 471, which unabashedly funnels millions of 
public tax dollars to private religious schools.
  The bill compels the American public to spend its tax dollars to fund 
religious schools that do not have to adhere to important civil rights 
laws or federal statues requiring equality such as Title IX. This is 
simply unacceptable.
  We must defend the ``wall of separation'' between church and state as 
envisioned by our nation's founders and we must fight to uphold it for 
all Americans.
  H.R. 471 also violates the Republican leadership's ``CutGo'' promise.
  This completely unpaid for legislation would increase the federal 
deficit by $300 million to reauthorize and expand a program that has 
utterly failed to increase student achievement.
  What is even more appalling is the fact that Speaker Boehner is 
pushing the use of public dollars for private religious schools while 
at the same time slashing federal education funding by almost $5 
billion in the majority's job-killing FY11 spending bill passed in 
February.
  Across the country public schools are still reeling from the great 
recession that helped create large state budget deficits.
  In fact, in my home state of Florida, the Republican Governor, is 
proposing an additional $2.3 billion in cuts to public education.
  Rather than turn our backs on students, we should be working together 
to improve public education, make sound investments balanced with smart 
cuts, and ensure that all students have access to instruction that will 
give them the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century.
  Instead, we stand here today debating a bill that doubles down on a 
failed Republican program in the District of Columbia which veers far 
away from these ideals.
  The Department of Education found that many of the students in the 
voucher program were less likely to have access to key services--such 
as English as a Second Language programs, learning support and special 
needs programs, counselors, or even teachers with a bachelor's degree.
  Democrats will continue to judge each piece of legislation that comes 
before the House by whether it creates jobs, strengthens our middle 
class, or reduces the deficit. H.R. 471 achieves none of these goals 
while also violating the Constitution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this ill- conceived bill.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 471, 
the private school voucher program for the District of Columbia.
  This bill would revive the ineffective and inefficient D.C. voucher 
program. The bill authorizes $100 million over the next five years for 
only 1.3 percent of students to receive vouchers in D.C.--with no 
offset for the funding.
  I do not support any attempt to resume funding the D.C. voucher 
system using taxpayer dollars intended for public schools. We should be 
investing public dollars in public schools, not diverting critically 
needed resources to private institutions. Private schools are not held 
to the same standards as our public schools--including civil rights 
laws and accountability measures--and are not required to provide the 
same services, such as educating individuals with disabilities.
  Vouchers take scarce resources away from our children and provide no 
accountability for our tax dollars. While the D.C. voucher program was 
in effect, multiple studies found that the students in the program were 
not performing better academically compared to other students in the 
District. In fact, the program was so poorly run that some students 
were allowed to use vouchers to attend unaccredited schools.
  The Republican House majority made the largest cut to education in 
our history in their continuing resolution for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 
1) that passed the House. In the same bill, they proposed to fund the 
D.C. voucher system at $15.5 million. Again, my Republican colleagues 
cut public education in all 50 states while reviving millions of 
dollars for vouchers for one percent of students in the District of 
Columbia.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 471 and any 
funding efforts for this failed program.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Ms. Norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public Funds for Public 
     Education Act''.

     SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DC PUBLIC CHARTER 
                   SCHOOLS.

       (a) General Authority.--From the funds appropriated under 
     section 4, the Secretary of Education (in this Act referred 
     to as the ``Secretary'') shall provide funds to the Mayor of 
     the District of Columbia (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Mayor''), if the Mayor agrees to the requirements described 
     in subsection (b), for--
       (1) the District of Columbia public schools to improve 
     public education in the District of Columbia; and
       (2) the District of Columbia public charter schools to 
     improve and expand quality public charter schools in the 
     District of Columbia.
       (b) Condition of Receipt of Funds.--As a condition of 
     receiving funds under this Act on behalf of the District of 
     Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public 
     charter schools, the Mayor shall agree to carry out the 
     following:
       (1) Agreement with the secretary.--Enter into an agreement 
     with the Secretary to monitor and evaluate the use of funds 
     authorized and appropriated for the District of Columbia 
     public schools and the District of Columbia public charter 
     schools under this Act.
       (2) Information requests.--Ensure that all District of 
     Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public 
     charter schools comply with all reasonable requests for 
     information for purposes of the evaluation described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Submission of report.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the first appropriation of funds under section 4, and each 
     succeeding year thereafter, submit to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
     and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, information on--
       (A) how the funds authorized and appropriated under this 
     Act for the District of Columbia public schools and the 
     District of Columbia public charter schools were used in the 
     preceding school year; and
       (B) how such funds are contributing to student achievement.
       (4) Public availability.--Ensure that all reports and 
     underlying data gathered pursuant to this subsection shall be 
     made available to the public upon request, in a timely manner 
     following submission of the applicable report under paragraph 
     (3), except that personally identifiable information shall 
     not be disclosed or made available to the public.
       (c) Enforcement.--If, after reasonable notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing for the Mayor, the Secretary 
     determines that the Mayor has not been in compliance with 1 
     or more of the requirements described in subsection (b), the 
     Secretary may withhold from the Mayor, in whole or in part, 
     further funds under this Act for the District of Columbia 
     public schools and the District of Columbia public charter 
     schools.

     SEC. 3. PRIORITY CONSIDERATION FOR CERTAIN STUDENTS.

       Each District of Columbia public charter school, in 
     selecting new students for admission to the school, shall 
     give priority to students who were provided notification of 
     selection for an opportunity scholarship under the DC School 
     Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. 
     Official Code) for the 2009-2010 school year, but whose 
     scholarship was later rescinded in accordance with direction 
     from the Secretary of Education.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $60,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2012 and each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years, 
     of which--
       (1) 50 percent shall be made available to carry out 
     paragraph (1) of section 2(a) for each fiscal year; and
       (2) 50 percent shall be made available to carry out 
     paragraph (2) of section 2(a) for each fiscal year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 186, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and a Member 
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

                              {time}  1520

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to correct the 
gentleman from California. The District charter school bill was created 
by Speaker Gingrich in partnership with me. He

[[Page 4711]]

came to me and proposed a voucher bill. I asked him, since the District 
had a local charter school bill, if he would introduce, instead, a 
charter school law. We consulted with the local public officials, with 
the school board, with citizens. It was the home rule alternative to 
vouchers, and you can check with Speaker Gingrich.
  Now, my home rule substitute would redirect the $300 million in H.R. 
471, 50 percent to the District public charter schools, 50 percent to 
the District of Columbia Public Schools. If the majority wants to add 
$300 million to the deficit without an offset, then let it at least be 
on the basis of educational merit; then it should be added to the 
public schools which have shown major growth, the only public school 
system of the 18 largest urban school systems that showed significant 
improvements in math and reading over the last 2 years.
  If you want to add to the deficit, then at least add to it by giving 
money to our public charter schools which outdo the D.C. public schools 
and way outdo, of course, the voucher schools, which show no 
improvement. The public charter middle and high schools scored twice as 
high as the traditional public charter schools in the District in math 
and reading, and they have a graduation rate 24 percent above the D.C. 
public schools and 8 percent above the national average. This is where 
you would give the money if you had any interest in education in the 
District of Columbia instead of your own parochial interests in making 
the District a petri dish of the pet project of a few Members of 
Congress. You would look at our public charter schools as the 
alternative to the District's public schools.
  There are 53 campuses, amounting to almost 100 different charter 
schools, almost half of the children of the District of Columbia. How 
did they get there? They voted with their feet. I mean, listen to some 
of the names of these schools: Washington Latin School; Washington 
Math, Science, and Technology High School. I have, myself, appointed 
two students from Washington Math, Science, and Technology to Service 
Academies. Early Childhood Academy; Hospitality Academy; Howard 
University Middle School--that's a charter school; the KIPP Schools. 
We've got eight of them. Those are the top charter schools and some of 
the best public charter schools in the United States. SEED Residential 
charter school. You have some money? You want to spend some money? Here 
is the place to spend it.
  To show you just what kind of a home rule alternative this is, with 
almost 100 different schools, they have got 19 new charter school 
applications coming for 2012. People keep coming despite the 
improvements in the District public schools. They are going to have a 
preschool charter. They are going to have three new high schools: one 
an all male college prep, one that focuses on public service, another 
that focuses on math and science.
  You want to talk choices, you want to talk creative choices, look at 
the District of Columbia. We know how to create choices for ourselves, 
choices that our parents want, choices that our parents create and pay 
for because they want their own choices, not the choices of the 
Republicans of the House of Representatives. In a democracy, the 
choices of a self-governing local jurisdiction trump all other choices, 
and especially the choices of Members who are not responsible to the 
people of the District of Columbia, who do not have to stand for 
election in the District of Columbia but get a free ride, as I do not.
  If you insist on adding to the deficit, then, for goodness sake, 
reinforce the home rule, hard work of our own parents and our own local 
organizations. Commend them for the dazzling array of almost 100 
public, accountable charter schools they have created. Relieve their 
long waiting lists, which now contain thousands of students waiting to 
get into our charter schools.
  The District of Columbia did not appreciate being an unwilling object 
of a Republican experiment once. With your cavalier defiance of our 
choices, we like it much less the second time around.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the subcommittee chairman who has worked so 
hard on this issue and who truly does understand the gentlelady's 
passion, if not her accuracy.
  Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, again I would like to thank the chairman of 
the full committee, the gentleman from California, for his leadership.
  It is instructive, it is informative, not to mention ironic, that 
there were opponents to the D.C. charter school system, just like there 
is resistance to the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Indeed, Mr. 
Speaker, some of the very same people who rise today in opposition to 
the Opportunity Scholarship Program, lauding the virtues of the D.C. 
charter school system, once opposed that very charter school system.
  The charter school system is a success--I will acknowledge that--just 
like the Opportunity Scholarship Program is a success. They are both 
successful because the parents in the District of Columbia want choice.
  I hate to be redundant. I don't want to beat a dead horse, although 
it does not hurt the horse to return to the evidence. And the evidence 
proves beyond a reasonable doubt by any reasonable, statistical 
measurement: the parents want this program; the students want this 
program; the community wants this program; even some elected officials 
want this program. They just happen to not be ones we have heard from 
on the other side of the aisle today.
  Reading scores are up. Educational attainment is up. Graduation rates 
are up. And it bears repeating again. There is a myriad of maladies 
that are connected to the dropout rate in this country. And if all we 
do is to get kids to graduate, it is worth it for this program alone if 
they just get kids to graduate.
  Opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker--and make no mistake about this. 
Opposition to this bill is political and not factual. I will say that 
because 18-year-olds in the District of Columbia can take Federal 
dollars and they can go to Notre Dame and BYU, and they can go to 
Stanford and they can go to Baylor and they can go to Rice. So why do 
we oppose Federal dollars helping 17-year-olds? Let that point sink in. 
So 18-year-olds can take Federal dollars and go to whatever private 
school they want to, but 17-year-olds cannot take private dollars to go 
to whatever high school they want to. And I defy anyone to explain to 
me that distinction.
  My colleague from the District of Columbia is a passionate, zealous 
advocate for her constituents, and I commend her for that. I genuinely 
commend her for her passion and her zeal in representing her 
constituents. But even her passion is no match for the passion of 
parents who hope for a better future for their children. Even her 
passion cannot match the passion of the parents who came to testify 
before our subcommittee that this is a lifeline. This is a once-in-a-
generation opportunity. And for us to say ``no'' to the Opportunity 
Scholarship Program because of pure, raw, gutter politics is wrong.

                              {time}  1530

  I would oppose this amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to 
support the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, let me say this: The last speaker said 
something that I found very offensive when he said it's about raw, 
gutter politics. I personally resent that, and the reason why I resent 
it is because it sends the wrong message on this floor.
  We can have disagreements, but this is not about raw, gutter 
politics. This is about standing up for every child. I've said it over 
and over and over again. And I, as a product of public schools, and my 
children who have gone to charter schools and public

[[Page 4712]]

schools, and I've sat on a charter school board, and living in an area 
in Baltimore where ``The Wire'' is filmed, I can tell you that this is 
not about raw, gutter politics. This is about the politics of lifting 
children up so that they can be the best that they can be. That's what 
this is all about.
  And I've said it in committee and I'll say it over and over again: 
There is not one Member on this side who does not care about every 
single child. And when we talk about this program, this voucher 
program, one of the things that we need to consider is we're talking 
about right now about 1,012 kids. We're also talking about a charter 
school program with over 27,000 and counting. And it affects a lot more 
people. What we're trying to do is help as many kids as possible.
  You talk about the graduation rates. The graduation rates for the 
charter schools are better than this voucher program graduation rates. 
And so what do we try to do?
  We need to be trying to address things in the most effective and 
efficient manner. And so it's easy to talk about gutter politics. But 
what we're talking about is trying to help every child.
  Now, you talked also about how we can take this money, children can 
take this money, when they get to college and go to various places, 
colleges; and you're right. But the fact is that you just voted in H.R. 
1 to slash $845 per year. And I see students every year, the board I 
sit on, the college board in Baltimore where kids, for $845, that $845 
would cause kids not to be able to attend college, period. So it's nice 
to lift them up.
  First of all, we don't give them, we cut off money from the Head 
Start so they can't get the Head Start. We want children to even get to 
the point of being able to be in a position to go to high school. But 
then after they get out of high school--and it is not about gutter 
politics--after they get out of high school, we want to make sure that 
they're able to have the necessary funding to go forward. And so I 
don't consider what the other side is saying one bit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield the gentleman another minute.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me be clear. I do not consider it gutter politics 
for the other side to argue what it's arguing. I believe there are 
philosophical differences, and that's okay. And we will differ. And I 
have never, not once, and I don't think anybody on this side has not 
once, said that we don't all want to lift our children up. That's what 
America's all about. That's how we became the great country that we 
are. For every child.
  And again I say it: The worst thing, the greatest threat to our 
national security is our failure to properly educate every single one 
of our children. Leave no child behind.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, what are they afraid of? What are 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, afraid of?
  Let me second my colleague from South Carolina, respectfully. It is 
about raw, gutter politics. Respectfully, my colleague from Maryland 
talks about standing up for every child, helping every child.
  What are they afraid of? Why won't they help every single child?
  And it is politics. My colleagues on the other side can dance around 
any rationale they want to dance around. The evidence on this issue, 
we're beyond it. We are beyond having to debate empowering parents. 
We're past that.
  So what, respectfully, on the other side of the aisle, is causing my 
colleagues to be against empowering--and I'll emphasize the word 
``every''--every parent?
  Ms. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Respectfully, no.
  My colleague from South Carolina respectfully said raw, gutter 
politics because my colleagues on the other side are scared to death of 
offending the teachers' unions.
  And ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Speaker, the teachers' unions are 
scared to death of this scholarship program because, look out, if this 
scholarship program demonstrates success, and it has, it will be 
modeled all over the country, and that, respectfully, is what scares 
the teachers' unions, because they don't want kids to be able to 
escape.
  And my colleagues on the other side will answer to what they want. 
That's the politics that we're talking about.
  We're talking about power. The power should go to the parent, plain 
and simple, every parent. Charter school, public school, home school, 
private school, you name it. That's where the power should lie.
  Ms. NORTON. How much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. To the gentleman who didn't have the nerve to yield to 
me, this bill, of course----


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  The gentleman will kindly state his point of order.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that the House rules prohibit 
direct accusations about the intent or the personal features of 
somebody or, in fact, whether or not they have nerve?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not going to respond to a 
hypothetical question.
  Mr. ISSA. And I am not going to take down the gentlelady's words 
because it is too short a period of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized.
  Ms. NORTON. The speaker before the last speaker wanted to know what 
the offense was. The offense is to the home-rule prerogative to the 
people of the District of Columbia to decide on educational choices for 
their own children. That's what the offense is.
  Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. One of the previous speakers said that he wanted to 
empower the parents of the District of Columbia. I agree. I think we 
should empower the parents of the District of Columbia to elect a 
representative who has a vote in this Chamber. Why don't we start with 
that?
  The irony of the proposition that this bill is allegedly about 
empowerment of adults in the District of Columbia and their children 
comes from people who, I assume, would resist the notion that the 
representative of the District of Columbia should have a vote in this 
Chamber.
  And let me bring up some very recent history. Under our majority, 
votes in the Committee of the Whole were, in fact, accorded to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. On the first day of the new 
majority, it repealed her right and the rights of others from the 
territories to vote on matters in the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1540

  There is one issue in this bill: Taxation without representation is 
tyranny. Decisionmaking without representation is wrong. The duly-
elected representative of the people of the District of Columbia 
supports this amendment and opposes this bill. So do I for that reason.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow we should consider a bill 
reorganizing the public schools of Cincinnati, Ohio, because we have 
just about as much prerogative to do that as we do this.
  Support the amendment. Defeat the underlying bill.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, we should bear in mind that home rule is not 
the right of the District of Columbia to rule people's private homes 
and how they make their choices for their children.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank the chairman.

[[Page 4713]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, the Scholarship 
Opportunity and Results Act, and against the Norton amendment.
  Coming from South Carolina, for 8 years in the general assembly, we 
debated the positive benefits of school choice. I have heard every 
argument. But what I have seen prior to 2009 is that here, in D.C., 
school choice was a model for the Nation as a very successful program. 
We have seen the positive impact of injecting free market principles 
into the education system here in Washington, D.C. We have seen 
thousands of students' lives changed. We have seen them line up for a 
chance at a better life because they could escape a failing school and 
have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
  Because all students learn differently, it is imperative that we 
empower parents. And that is what it is about, empowering parents to 
make choices for the education of their children; give them the ability 
to choose the best educational experience for their child, whether it 
is public, charter, private, or home school.
  Neither the State nor the Federal Government knows what is best for 
our children. We do as parents. Parents know what is best for their 
children, and parents and teachers should have the freedom to work 
together to find and create motivating learning environments that are 
necessary for every child to succeed.
  This bill restores to the parents the ability to make the right 
choices that this administration and the previous Congress stripped 
away, and it provides an escape from the failed bureaucratic system of 
the District of Columbia.
  Without question, when students are placed in a learning environment 
that best fits their individual needs, our educational system will 
become exceptional. This bill brings more transparency and 
accountability to the program, raises the scholarship amounts for both 
elementary school and high school students, as my colleague from South 
Carolina said, and caps the administrative costs. This bill takes a 
successful program and makes it even better, and does so without 
spending new taxpayer dollars or growing the size of government. In 
fact, school choice saves the government money while providing a better 
education for the children.
  It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that other States will follow suit. Even 
as parental school choice is working for American students and families 
in Washington, D.C., we have also seen its effectiveness in States like 
Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Florida, 
where the achievement gap between white students and minorities is 
disappearing. My home State of South Carolina is debating school choice 
right now in their legislative session, creating a bill that would 
expand educational choice opportunities for all children across my home 
State. And I urge my fellow colleagues in South Carolina to get the job 
done and pass that legislation.
  Let me thank the Speaker of the House for introducing this bill. I 
thank him for his leadership of parental choice on behalf of 
Washington, D.C.'s families and students who demand effective schools.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Norton amendment and 
``yes'' on the SOAR Act.
  Ms. NORTON. The gentleman cited a number of schools that he said 
vouchers had helped. There is no data showing that voucher schools--and 
there have been a few in the United States--have ever scored better 
than children in public schools. And since Milwaukee was mentioned, let 
me indicate some news that just came out Tuesday.
  Results from the first administration of Statewide exams for students 
participating in the Milwaukee voucher program showed lower academic 
achievement than students attending Milwaukee public schools. The 
results also show that the Milwaukee public schools and voucher schools 
have significant lower achievement than the Statewide average.
  But here, you have a big city public school system that is doing 
better than the voucher schools. And that is what the data shows all 
over the United States, including the District of Columbia, where the 
Bush Department of Education specifically found that the children in 
voucher schools did not show significant improvement in math and 
reading scores. While I have shown details here this afternoon of 
significant improvement of the D.C. public schools, the only urban 
school system that has in fact shown significant improvement in math 
and science, and particularly dazzling results in the D.C. charter 
schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and for 
his leadership on this issue, which is near and dear to my heart, as it 
is to the hearts of thousands upon thousands of families in the 
District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to the Norton funding 
amendment. The gentlewoman and I have worked together on occasion on 
issues, and I know her devotion to the District of Columbia. But we 
will just have to respectfully disagree on this issue, because I simply 
believe that the Scholarships for Opportunities and Results Act 
represents the continuation of one of the most important programs that 
I have had the privilege of being a part of here in Washington, D.C.
  Now, there is a suggestion that this legislation takes money away 
from the public schools. But I think, as we have heard in this debate, 
because of the three-sector approach created by the original 
authorizing legislation, District public schools and public charter 
schools have received over one-quarter of $1 billion in additional 
direct Federal payments since 2004. Both DCPS and the charter schools 
will continue to receive increased Federal dollars under this 
legislation.
  So the old arguments against giving students and parents more choices 
because it denies funding to public schools don't even attach here on 
the facts.
  But beyond that, let me say the reason why I felt the need to come to 
the floor today. The reason why I so respect Speaker John Boehner's 
leadership on this issue is because of meetings that I have had in my 
office with oftentimes the teary-eyed parents of children in the 
District of Columbia.
  I will just never forget last year meeting with moms and dads from 
the District of Columbia, most of them from the minority community, who 
came to me with tears in their eyes and said, ``I have one child that 
is in a private school. I was able to take advantage of the D.C. 
scholarship. But because this administration and the last Congress 
terminated it, I cannot give that other opportunity to their younger 
brother or sister.'' And they literally came to me--at that time I was 
in a leadership position in the Republican majority--and they said, 
``Please do something about this.'' And my heart went out to those 
families.
  We had an election, and now we find ourselves in a renewed Republican 
majority. And the Speaker of the House of Representatives today is a 
man who probably has a larger heart for kids as a former chairman of 
the Education Committee than maybe any other former Speaker in the 
history of this institution.

                              {time}  1550

  So we find ourselves at this moment when I can say with no small 
amount of emotion, I can say to those families, yes, we are going to 
put the scholarship back. We are going to say to the rest of your 
children that they deserve the best choice for their education future 
as well.
  It is a noble moment for this Congress. The Old Book tells us that 
whatever you do for the least of these, that you do for Him. I think 
this is one of those moments where we look at families that are 
struggling under the weight of some of the most beleaguered public 
schools in America and we are putting our arms around those families 
and saying, we are going to give you more choices. We are going to let 
you as parents, regardless of your race or income or status in society, 
we are

[[Page 4714]]

going to give you the opportunity to make the same choice for a private 
school and a public school and a charter school as Americans that have 
the means to do so can make.
  Let me also say I see this debate over educational choice, whether it 
is in the District of Columbia or in my own beloved Indiana, as all 
tied up in the debate over education reform that has been manifest 
throughout this country over the last half century and more. I mean, 
there was a day almost in my lifetime, just on the periphery of my 
lifetime, when some stood in the schoolhouse door and said, You may not 
come in.
  But we fixed that as a nation. And now there are some in the massive 
education establishment in this country who stand in the schoolhouse 
door and say, You may not come out. You may not have the same choices 
that other Americans have, simply because of your means and your 
condition in life.
  The Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act levels the playing 
field.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. PENCE. The SOAR Act opens the schoolhouse door. It reopens the 
door for opportunities for these families and for their children in the 
District of Columbia. And I believe it was before a model for the 
Nation, and it can be so again.
  So I encourage my colleagues to join me in respectfully opposing the 
Norton funding amendment but vigorously supporting H.R. 471. Let's 
stand with those families. Let's put joy in their hearts. Let's create 
a boundless future for their children. Let's pass the Scholarships for 
Opportunity and Results Act.
  Ms. NORTON. I respect my good friend, but I have got to stand for and 
with the people I represent. And if the gentleman wants to put the joy 
in the hearts of my parents, I challenge him to put joy in the hearts 
of the parents of his beloved Indiana, as he says, by bringing a 
national vouchers bill to the floor so that some of them may have the 
choice that we have not asked for.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the 
ranking member of our committee.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to our last speaker talk 
about teary-eyed parents, well, guess what: I see teary-eyed parents 
who want to put their kids in Head Start. I just saw them last week at 
a town hall meeting. H.R. 1 slashes over $1 billion from Head Start. 
They are in tears, too.
  In my district, by the way, a total of 20,000 kids will not get Pell 
Grants or get $1,000 slashed per year from Pell Grants. They are in 
tears, too. Do you know why? Because they will drop out of school and 
many of them will never return to school because they don't have the 
money. They are in tears, too.
  I believe with all my heart that the Speaker's intentions are good. 
You won't hear me say anything opposite of that. But, again, I am 
trying to figure out how do we take the dollars that we have and spend 
them in the most effective and efficient manner.
  When we talk about the least of these, I really want to see kids get 
that head start that I am talking about; and, for the life of me, maybe 
I am missing something, I don't see how on the one hand we talk about 
these children that we love, how we want to embrace them and how we 
want to embrace their parents and bring joy to their hearts, but then 
take away the very money that would allow them to be able to get to 
where they have got to go.
  So you are right that there was a time when people could not get in 
that schoolhouse door all over this country. My parents, they would be 
walking to school for 4 miles and other kids would come riding the bus 
spitting on them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. And they were unable to get an education.
  Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is let's embrace all of our kids. I 
want for my colleagues' kids, Mr. Speaker, the same thing I would want 
for mine. This program affects about 1,000 kids. Well, just in charter 
schools, there are over 27,000 in the District.
  So I would just support the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe we should lighten up just a little here. Yogi 
Berra apparently said, ``Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded,'' 
when referring to a restaurant that had long lines to get in. Mr. 
Speaker, we are finding a way to say a program isn't good because it 
has long lines waiting to get in. And, oddly enough, when it comes to 
the charter public schools that have been lauded on a wide basis here, 
they too have no free rights to automatically go and they have lines. 
Perhaps what we should be asking is, on a bipartisan basis: What could 
we do to reduce the lines to both to provide that opportunity to all 
the children in the District of Columbia?
  I will say one thing in maybe a Yogi Berra-type way. If the Democrats 
will come halfway to the center of the aisle to talk about how we can 
hit a reasonable number for spending, I will put everything on the 
table, at least as to my vote, to meet them the other half. But we 
can't simply say all cuts are bad and have no alternatives, all 
programs are so needy they can't be cut, and then complain even when we 
preserve a program.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the residents of the District of Columbia 
see a pattern here. The majority begins by taking away my vote in the 
Committee of the Whole so I can't vote on any part of this bill this 
afternoon, then they take away or try to take away the needle exchange 
program that keeps HIV-AIDS from being spread throughout the District 
of Columbia. Then they are also trying to take away the choice of low-
income women in the District in two bills, the reproductive choice of 
low-income women in two bills: H.R. 1 and H.R. 3.
  They have introduced a bill to put their version of gun laws on the 
District of Columbia, although the courts have found our new gun laws 
to be constitutional. This morning we hear that they are coming forward 
yet again with more to do to the District of Columbia by trying to 
erase our marriage equality law.
  Now they say, after taking all of that from you, we have got 
something for you, something you never asked for, vouchers, instead of 
funding your own home rule choice, your public charter schools.
  Yes, we know you fund the charter schools as well; but you then fund 
your choice, not ours. My amendment says if you want to fund something, 
ask us. Fund what we want, not what you want. And if you want vouchers, 
bring a national voucher bill right to the floor.

                              {time}  1600

  I can understand Republicans voting against my substitute. They will 
argue perhaps that it adds to the deficit. But if you vote against my 
substitute, then I don't see how you can vote for H.R. 471, because it 
certainly adds to the deficit, too; and you will be voting for your 
choice, not ours.
  Many of you have come to the House under the banner of liberty, to 
get the Federal Government out of even Federal matters. Now you're 
trying to get into a purely local matter involving our children and our 
local schools. If this were your district, you would ask us to defer to 
you. I'm asking you to defer to our preferences. The District of 
Columbia asks to be treated exactly as you would want to be treated--as 
free and equal citizens of the United States of America and not as 
second-class citizens, not as children, and certainly not as the 
colonial subjects of the Congress of the United States.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members to direct 
their comments to the Chair.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we won't fund failure from this 
side of the dais. Yes, we're giving additional money to the failed 
public schools. Yes, we're giving additional money to a

[[Page 4715]]

chartered public school system that tries valiantly to help those 
children trapped in those failed public schools. And, yes, we are going 
to make a continued small investment in children having an opportunity 
to find other alternatives, just as we do when children a little older 
get to go to Georgetown or Catholic University with Pell Grants that in 
fact go to these parochial colleges.
  Elections have consequences. The majority a year ago had planned on 
simply giving it all to union schools, to government schools, because 
the party of government was in charge. Mr. Speaker, the election made a 
difference. We consider ourselves--and we try valiantly on this side of 
the aisle--to be the party of the people. And we believe that the small 
amount of money to empower people and parents to do something they 
choose, and they stand in lines--in lotteries, as the other side has 
said--to escape those schools and to have an opportunity for these 
scholarships, we believe they have spoken loud and clear.
  And although the Delegate will talk about elections and home rule, 
she ignores those long lines to get out of failed public schools. She 
ignores the hearings we had in which people came and said, Please don't 
take our scholarships. And, Mr. Speaker, she even ignores her own 
party, and she ignores what is in her own amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, her amendment would leave 216 special cases that were 
denied still in for this year. Her amendment would leave in, the same 
as the Democrats did when they closed out the previous bill, it would 
leave those already in school in private schools getting additional 
funding every year. And there's a reason. President Obama's children 
were not going to watch their schoolmates be thrown out because a 
successful program that allowed them to be side by side as peers rather 
than relegated to a failed school was going to be stopped.
  So all we're doing is keeping a program of hope alive for the 
District of Columbia. And I have never been so insulted to be told that 
if we give money, we're bad; and if we don't give money every place the 
other side wants it, we're bad. We're trying to give the best we can to 
parental choice to failed school districts.
  With that, I urge the defeat of this amendment, that does nothing but 
retain the public school status quo that has failed, and the passage of 
the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185, 
nays 237, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 202]

                               YEAS--185

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barton (TX)
     Campbell
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Pascrell
     Pingree (ME)
     Shuler

                              {time}  1629

  Messrs. SCHWEIKERT, RENACCI, COFFMAN of Colorado, YOUNG of Florida, 
and FORBES changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, RANGEL, GRIJALVA, 
ALTMIRE, DOLD, and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
consideration of

[[Page 4716]]

this bill because the legislation violates clause 10 of rule XXI which 
states that it is not in order to consider a bill if it has the effect 
of increasing spending for the current year and a 5-year window. CBO 
estimates this bill will cost $500 million over 5 years without an 
offset in the bill.

                              {time}  1630

  As you can see, Mr. Speaker, ``We are setting PAYGO aside and 
instituting Cut-As-You-Go, which means if there is any spending called 
for in any new way or authorization, that there has to be some cutting 
somewhere.'' Eric Cantor.
  Further, the Speaker said:
  ``Very simply under the Cut-Go rule, if it is your intention to 
create a new government program, you must also terminate or reduce 
spending on an existing government program of equal or greater size--in 
the same bill.''
  I would point out, Mr. Speaker, as we already know, on January 5, 
there was a violation of the rules where Members failed to take the 
oath when they were not in the room.
  On February 9: Failed to offer a proper constitutionality statement 
with legislation that was offered.
  On March 3: Failed to require a three-fifths majority for the passage 
of a bill that raised tax rates.
  On March 17, we failed to make legislation available for 72 hours.
  And now we are failing to include an offset for a new government 
program required under these rules under Cut-Go.
  In order for these rules to be taken seriously, we can't simply say, 
Because it's a favorite program of the Speaker, we're going to waive 
the rules. The rules are there for a reason. We voted on those rules, 
and they were made an important part of the change of hands in this 
House. When you have statements like this by the Speaker, they should 
be taken seriously. There is no argument that the funds in this bill 
are simply not paid for, and I insist on my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of any point of order 
against the pending measure that would be timely or cognizable at this 
time.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WEINER. Is it not the rules of the House that, under clause 10(a) 
of rule XXI, what the Speaker articulated in this sentence is in fact 
the rule, that if you have money that needs to be offset, it has to be 
offset in the same bill? And it is further not the case that in this 
bill, it has been stipulated on both sides that this expense of $300 
million over 5 years is not paid for.
  Is that or is that not the rule of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House does have a clause 10 of rule XXI. 
That rule does not support a point of order at this stage of the 
proceedings.
  Mr. WEINER. The rule exists, but we don't need to follow it.
  I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point is that the gentleman is untimely.
  Mr. WEINER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WEINER. It's a simple question: Doesn't the rule stipulated here 
exist? And is the only reason we're not following it is that I didn't 
get to the floor in time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to political 
commentary.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the dispensing of the reading, and 
I reserve a point of order against the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cummings moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 471, to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, 
     with the following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DC PUBLIC 
                   CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) General Authority.--From the funds appropriated under 
     section 2, the Secretary of Education (in this Act referred 
     to as the ``Secretary'') shall provide funds to the Mayor of 
     the District of Columbia (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Mayor''), if the Mayor agrees to the requirements described 
     in subsection (b), for--
       (1) the District of Columbia public schools for continued 
     improvements in the academic achievement of all students in 
     the District of Columbia public schools;
       (2) the District of Columbia public charter schools for 
     continued improvements in the academic achievement of all 
     students in the District of Columbia public charter schools; 
     and
       (3) special education services under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) for 
     students eligible for such services in the District of 
     Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public 
     charter schools.
       (b) Condition of Receipt of Funds.--As a condition of 
     receiving funds under this Act, the Mayor shall--
       (1) enter into an agreement with the Secretary to monitor 
     and evaluate the use of funds authorized and appropriated for 
     the District of Columbia public schools and the District of 
     Columbia public charter schools under this Act; and
       (2) ensure that the funds are used by the District of 
     Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public 
     charter schools for continued improvements in the academic 
     achievement of all students in the District of Columbia 
     public schools and the District of Columbia public charter 
     schools, respectively, by using effective methods and 
     instructional strategies, which are based on scientifically 
     based research, that strengthen the core academic program of 
     schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
     restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316).

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2012 and each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years, 
     of which--
       (1) $10,000,000 shall be made available to carry out 
     paragraph (1) of section 1(a) for each fiscal year;
       (2) $10,000,000 shall be made available to carry out 
     paragraph (2) of section 1(a) for each fiscal year; and
       (3) $10,000,000 shall be made available to carry out 
     paragraph (3) of section 1(a) for each fiscal year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. ISSA. No, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the final amendment before us would 
accomplish two important goals: First, the amendment would cut the 
funding authorized by H.R. 471 in half, thereby reducing the Federal 
deficit over the next 5 years by $150 million below what was authorized 
for expenditure in the base text of H.R. 471.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side today, Mr. 
Speaker. But one thing is clear: Voting for this motion will save $150 
million over 5 years.
  So the question for my Republican colleagues is will you be true to 
your promises to address the deficit, or will you put these promises 
aside to support a pet project that advances a narrow ideological 
agenda?
  Second, instead of spending money on a miniscule fraction of students 
who would receive a voucher, this amendment would target scarce Federal 
resources to areas where they would do

[[Page 4717]]

the most good: D.C. public schools, charter schools, and special 
education/IDEA activities.
  As we have discussed, students participating in the existing D.C. 
voucher program have shown no statistically significant improvement in 
reading or math skills. By contrast, students in the D.C. public 
schools and charter schools have shown significant gains over the last 
few years. This amendment would direct funds to support schools that 
have been proven to improve student achievement. This amendment would 
also provide funds to support special education and IDEA-related 
programs in the District.

                              {time}  1640

  IDEA funding goes toward critical services for children with 
disabilities, such as early intervention, support for special education 
teachers, and assistance to help students gain access to a suitable 
curriculum.
  Since the enactment of IDEA, achievement among students served by 
this program has improved dramatically, but more progress must be made.
  As Mayor Gray discussed Monday in his State of the District address, 
D.C. has been unable to serve all of its special needs kids in public 
facilities and is paying nearly $250 million to send students to 
nonpublic schools that can serve disabled students' unique educational 
needs. This amendment would help D.C. better serve students who need 
special education services in the public system.
  Importantly, let it be clear that if you vote ``yes'' on this motion, 
the amendment it proposes will be voted on immediately following this 
debate. That vote will be followed by a vote on final passage of the 
bill. Adoption of this amendment will not delay consideration of this 
legislation; and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for deficit 
reduction. I urge my colleagues to direct scarce Federal dollars where 
they will do the most good.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this final amendment to the bill.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The point of this amendment is, if 
you're going to spend this money in violation of the rule and you're 
going to create additional deficit, you at least ought to spend it on 
something that's effective and that works for the children and improves 
their educational opportunity.
  Investing in the D.C. voucher program that has now run over a period 
of years by every study that has been done on it says that these 
students are doing no better than when they left the school, but we're 
spending $100 million to educate them. They statistically are not 
improved over the performance of the school that they left, but we 
continue to spend the money on the myth that somehow this is a model 
program that you would replicate all over the country.
  Why would you replicate a program that is so inefficient and does not 
provide an educational advantage for the students participating in it?
  I understand their parents who chose them to participate in the 
voucher program feel they made a good decision, but that's not a mark 
of whether or not they're getting the educational opportunity that 
they're entitled to.
  With Mr. Cummings' amendment, you can invest in what is working. You 
can invest in the public schools where African American high school 
students have seen double-digit gains in reading and math, and the 
percentage of high school students that have achieved advance status in 
reading and math has more than doubled. The percentage of special 
education students achieving proficient status has more than doubled. 
These schools, public and public charter schools, are working for the 
children of D.C.
  But the Republicans would have you insist that what you really ought 
to do is take $100 billion in new deficit spending and park it in this 
voucher program because of their commitment on an ideological basis, 
but not on programs that work. We ought to choose the programs that 
work for the children of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. ISSA. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We spent an hour and 40 
minutes discussing the bill and the amendment, and at least the 
delegate from the District of Columbia attempted to move these dollars 
all to the public school system.
  This bill, in fact, not only denies the children who are in these 
programs today, some of them side by side with the President's 
children; but, in fact, it cuts funding for public education.
  Under this motion to recommit, the funding for public education on a 
yearly basis would go from $40 million to $20 million. There would be 
less money in the public school system, in addition to being no money 
for Opportunity Scholarships.
  I oppose the motion to recommit and urge the support of the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 238, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 203]

                               AYES--185

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson

[[Page 4718]]


     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barton (TX)
     Campbell
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Pascrell
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Shuler
     Stutzman

                              {time}  1701

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 195, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 204]

                               AYES--225

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--195

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barton (TX)
     Campbell
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Herger
     Hunter
     Mica
     Pascrell
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Shuler
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1708

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 204, I was not present for 
the vote due to my participation, as Co-Chair of the House Traumatic 
Brain Injury (TBI) Task Force, in a meeting with Department of Defense 
officials regarding the treatment of wounded warriors suffering from 
TBIs.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________