[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5433-5446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 706, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 4901) to reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity 
and Results Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4901

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES IN ACT.

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

     SEC. 2. REPEAL.

       Section 817 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 
     (Public Law 114-113) is repealed, and any provision of law 
     amended or repealed by such section is restored or revived as 
     if such section had not been enacted into law.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       Section 3003 (sec. 38-1853.03, D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended by striking ``particularly parents'' and all that 
     follows through ``, with'' and inserting ``particularly 
     parents of students who attend an elementary school or 
     secondary school identified as one of the lowest-performing 
     schools under the District of Columbia's accountability 
     system, with''.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITING IMPOSITION OF LIMITS ON TYPES OF ELIGIBLE 
                   STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM.

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

     SEC. 5. REQUIRING ELIGIBLE ENTITIES TO UTILIZE INTERNAL 
                   FISCAL AND QUALITY CONTROLS.

       Section 3005(b)(1) (sec. 38-1853.05(b)(1), D.C. Official 
     Code) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``, except that a 
     participating school may not be required to submit to more 
     than 1 site visit per school year'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (K) and (L) as 
     subparagraphs (L) and (M), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following:
       ``(K) how the entity will ensure the financial viability of 
     participating schools in which 85 percent or more of the 
     total number of students enrolled at the school are 
     participating eligible students that receive and use an 
     opportunity scholarship;'';
       (4) in subparagraph (L), as redesignated by paragraph (2), 
     by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(N) how the eligible entity will ensure that it--
       ``(i) utilizes internal fiscal and quality controls; and
       ``(ii) complies with applicable financial reporting 
     requirements and the requirements of this division; and''.

     SEC. 6. CLARIFICATION OF PRIORITIES FOR AWARDING SCHOLARSHIPS 
                   TO ELIGIBLE STUDENTS.

       Section 3006(1) (sec. 38-1853.06(1), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``attended'' and all 
     that follows through the semicolon and inserting ``attended 
     an elementary school or secondary school identified as one of 
     the lowest-performing schools under the District of 
     Columbia's accountability system; and'';
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B); 
     and
       (4) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated by paragraph (3), 
     by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``or 
     whether such students have, in the past, attended a private 
     school;''.

     SEC. 7. MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATING 
                   SCHOOLS AND ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       (a) Criminal Background Checks; Compliance With Reporting 
     Requirements.--Section 3007(a)(4) (sec. 38-1853.07(a)(4), 
     D.C. Official Code) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(F) ensures that, with respect to core subject matter, 
     participating students are taught by a teacher who has a 
     baccalaureate degree or equivalent degree, whether such 
     degree was awarded in or outside of the United States;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) conducts criminal background checks on school 
     employees who have direct and unsupervised interaction with 
     students; and
       ``(H) complies with all requests for data and information 
     regarding the reporting requirements described in section 
     3010.''.
       (b) Accreditation.--Section 3007(a) (sec. 38-1853.07(a), 
     D.C. Official Code), as amended by subsection (a), is further 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (5)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Accreditation requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--None of the funds provided under this 
     division for opportunity scholarships may be used by a 
     participating eligible student to enroll in a participating 
     private school unless the school--
       ``(i) in the case of a school that is a participating 
     school as of the date of enactment of the SOAR 
     Reauthorization Act--

       ``(I) is fully accredited by an accrediting body described 
     in any of subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 2202(16) 
     of the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public 
     Law 104-134; sec. 38-1802.02(16)(A)-(G), D.C. Official Code); 
     or
       ``(II) if such participating school does not meet the 
     requirements of subclause (I)--

       ``(aa) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-
     113), the school is pursuing full accreditation by an 
     accrediting body described in subclause (I); and
       ``(bb) is fully accredited by such an accrediting body not 
     later than 5 years after the date on which that school began 
     the process of pursuing full accreditation in accordance with 
     item (aa); and
       ``(ii) in the case of a school that is not a participating 
     school as of the date of enactment of the SOAR 
     Reauthorization Act, is fully accredited by an accrediting 
     body described in clause (i)(I) before becoming a 
     participating school under this division.
       ``(B) Reports to eligible entity.--Not later than 5 years 
     after the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, 
     each participating school shall submit to the eligible entity 
     a certification that the school 
     
     
[[Page 5434]]
     
     
     has been fully accredited in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Assisting students in enrolling in other schools.--If 
     a participating school fails to meet the requirements of this 
     paragraph, the eligible entity shall assist the parents of 
     the participating eligible students who attend the school in 
     identifying, applying to, and enrolling in another 
     participating school under this division.
       ``(6) Treatment of students awarded a scholarship in a 
     previous year.--An eligible entity shall treat a 
     participating eligible student who was awarded an opportunity 
     scholarship in any previous year and who has not used the 
     scholarship as a renewal student and not as a new applicant, 
     without regard as to--
       ``(A) whether the eligible student has used the 
     scholarship; and
       ``(B) the year in which the scholarship was previously 
     awarded.''.
       (c) Requiring Use of Funds Remaining Unobligated From 
     Previous Fiscal Years.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3007 (sec. 38-1853.07, D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Requiring Use of Funds Remaining Unobligated From 
     Previous Fiscal Years.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the extent that any funds 
     appropriated for the opportunity scholarship program under 
     this division for any fiscal year remain available for 
     subsequent fiscal years under section 3014(c), the Secretary 
     shall make such funds available to eligible entities 
     receiving grants under section 3004(a) for the uses described 
     in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) in the case of any remaining funds that were 
     appropriated before the date of enactment of the SOAR 
     Reauthorization Act, beginning on the date of enactment of 
     such Act; and
       ``(B) in the case of any remaining funds appropriated on or 
     after the date of enactment of such Act, by the first day of 
     the first subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--If an eligible entity to which the 
     Secretary provided additional funds under paragraph (1) 
     elects to use such funds during a fiscal year, the eligible 
     entity shall use--
       ``(A) not less than 95 percent of such additional funds to 
     provide additional scholarships for eligible students under 
     section 3007(a), or to increase the amount of the 
     scholarships, during such year; and
       ``(B) not more than a total of 5 percent of such additional 
     funds for administrative expenses, parental assistance, or 
     tutoring, as described in subsections (b) and (c), during 
     such year.
       ``(3) Special rule.--Any amounts made available for 
     administrative expenses, parental assistance, or tutoring 
     under paragraph (2)(B) shall be in addition to any other 
     amounts made available for such purposes in accordance with 
     subsections (b) and (c).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Use of Funds for Administrative Expenses and Parental 
     Assistance.--Section 3007 (sec. 38-1853.07, D.C. Official 
     Code), as amended by this section, is further amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Administrative Expenses and Parental Assistance.--The 
     Secretary shall make $2,000,000 of the amount made available 
     under section 3014(a)(1) for each fiscal year available to 
     eligible entities receiving a grant under section 3004(a) to 
     cover the following expenses:
       ``(1) The administrative expenses of carrying out its 
     program under this division during the year, including--
       ``(A) determining the eligibility of students to 
     participate;
       ``(B) selecting the eligible students to receive 
     scholarships;
       ``(C) determining the amount of the scholarships and 
     issuing the scholarships to eligible students;
       ``(D) compiling and maintaining financial and programmatic 
     records;
       ``(E) conducting site visits as described in section 
     3005(b)(1)(I); and
       ``(F)(i) conducting a study, including a survey of 
     participating parents, on any barriers for participating 
     eligible students in gaining admission to, or attending, the 
     participating school that is their first choice; and
       ``(ii) not later than the end of the first full fiscal year 
     after the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, 
     submitting a report to Congress that contains the results of 
     such study.
       ``(2) The expenses of educating parents about the eligible 
     entity's program under this division, and assisting parents 
     through the application process under this division, 
     including--
       ``(A) providing information about the program and the 
     participating schools to parents of eligible students, 
     including information on supplemental financial aid that may 
     be available at participating schools;
       ``(B) providing funds to assist parents of students in 
     meeting expenses that might otherwise preclude the 
     participation of eligible students in the program; and
       ``(C) streamlining the application process for parents.''; 
     and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d), and subsection (e) (as 
     added by subsection (c)(1)), as subsections (c) and (d), 
     respectively.
       (e) Clarification of Use of Funds for Student Academic 
     Assistance.--Section 3007(c) (sec. 38-1853.07(c), D.C. 
     Official Code), as redesignated by subsection (d)(2), is 
     amended by striking ``previously attended'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``previously attended an elementary school or secondary 
     school identified as one of the lowest-performing schools 
     under the District of Columbia's accountability system.''.

     SEC. 8. PROGRAM EVALUATION.

       (a) Revision of Evaluation Procedures and Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3009(a) (sec. 38-1853.09(a), D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Duties of the secretary and the mayor.--The Secretary 
     and the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall--
       ``(A) jointly enter into an agreement with the Institute of 
     Education Sciences of the Department of Education to evaluate 
     annually the opportunity scholarship program under this 
     division;
       ``(B) jointly enter into an agreement to monitor and 
     evaluate the use of funds authorized and appropriated for the 
     District of Columbia public schools and the District of 
     Columbia public charter schools under this division; and
       ``(C) make the evaluations described in subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) public in accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(2) Duties of the secretary.--The Secretary, through a 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, shall--
       ``(A) ensure that the evaluation under paragraph (1)(A)--
       ``(i) is conducted using an acceptable quasi-experimental 
     research design for determining the effectiveness of the 
     opportunity scholarship program under this division that does 
     not use a control study group consisting of students who 
     applied for but did not receive opportunity scholarships; and
       ``(ii) addresses the issues described in paragraph (4); and
       ``(B) disseminate information on the impact of the 
     program--
       ``(i) in increasing academic achievement and educational 
     attainment of participating eligible students who use an 
     opportunity scholarship; and
       ``(ii) on students and schools in the District of Columbia.
       ``(3) Duties of the institute of education sciences.--The 
     Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of 
     Education shall--
       ``(A) assess participating eligible students who use an 
     opportunity scholarship in each of grades 3 through 8, as 
     well as one of the grades at the high school level, by 
     supervising the administration of the same reading and 
     mathematics assessment used by the District of Columbia 
     public schools to comply with section 1111(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b));
       ``(B) measure the academic achievement of all participating 
     eligible students who use an opportunity scholarship in the 
     grades described in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) work with eligible entities receiving a grant under 
     this division to ensure that the parents of each student who 
     is a participating eligible student that uses an opportunity 
     scholarship agrees to permit their child to participate in 
     the evaluations and assessments carried out by the Institute 
     of Education Sciences under this subsection.
       ``(4) Issues to be evaluated.--The issues to be evaluated 
     under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the following:
       ``(A) A comparison of the academic achievement of 
     participating eligible students who use an opportunity 
     scholarship on the measurements described in paragraph (3)(B) 
     to the academic achievement of a comparison group of students 
     with similar backgrounds in the District of Columbia public 
     schools.
       ``(B) The success of the program under this division in 
     expanding choice options for parents of participating 
     eligible students and increasing the satisfaction of such 
     parents and students with their choice.
       ``(C) The reasons parents of participating eligible 
     students choose for their children to participate in the 
     program, including important characteristics for selecting 
     schools.
       ``(D) A comparison of the retention rates, high school 
     graduation rates, college enrollment rates, college 
     persistence rates, and college graduation rates of 
     participating eligible students who use an opportunity 
     scholarship with the rates of students in the comparison 
     group described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(E) A comparison of the college enrollment rates, college 
     persistence rates, and college graduation rates of students 
     who participated in the program in 2004, 2005, 2011, 2012, 
     2013, 2014, and 2015 as the result of winning the Opportunity 
     Scholarship Program lottery with such enrollment, 
     persistence, and graduation rates for students who entered 
     but did not win such lottery in those years and who, as a 
     result, served as the control group for previous evaluations 
     of the program under this division. Nothing in this 
     subparagraph may be construed to waive section 
     3004(a)(3)(A)(iii) with respect to any such student.
     
     
[[Page 5435]]


       ``(F) A comparison of the safety of the schools attended by 
     participating eligible students who use an opportunity 
     scholarship and the schools in the District of Columbia 
     attended by students in the comparison group described in 
     subparagraph (A), based on the perceptions of the students 
     and parents.
       ``(G) An assessment of student academic achievement at 
     participating schools in which 85 percent of the total number 
     of students enrolled at the school are participating eligible 
     students who receive and use an opportunity scholarship.
       ``(H) Such other issues with respect to participating 
     eligible students who use an opportunity scholarship as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate for inclusion in the 
     evaluation, such as the impact of the program on public 
     elementary schools and secondary schools in the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(5) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any disclosure of personally 
     identifiable information obtained under this division shall 
     be in compliance with section 444 of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (commonly known as the `Family Educational 
     Rights and Privacy Act of 1974') (20 U.S.C. 1232g).
       ``(B) Students not attending public schools.--With respect 
     to any student who is not attending a public elementary 
     school or secondary school, personally identifiable 
     information obtained under this division shall only be 
     disclosed to--
       ``(i) individuals carrying out the evaluation described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) for such student;
       ``(ii) the group of individuals providing information for 
     carrying out the evaluation of such student; and
       ``(iii) the parents of such student.''.
       (2) Transition of evaluation.--
       (A) Termination of previous evaluations.--The Secretary of 
     Education shall--
       (i) terminate the evaluations conducted under section 
     3009(a) of the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act 
     (sec. 38-1853.09(a), D.C. Official Code), as in effect on the 
     day before the date of enactment of this Act, after obtaining 
     data for the 2016-2017 school year; and
       (ii) submit any reports required for the 2016-2017 school 
     year or preceding years with respect to the evaluations in 
     accordance with section 3009(b) of such Act.
       (B) New evaluations.--
       (i) In general.--Effective beginning with respect to the 
     2017-2018 school year, the Secretary shall conduct new 
     evaluations in accordance with the provisions of section 
     3009(a) of the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act 
     (sec. 38-1853.09(a), D.C. Official Code), as amended by this 
     Act.
       (ii) Most recent evaluation.--As a component of the new 
     evaluations described in clause (i), the Secretary shall 
     continue to monitor and evaluate the students who were 
     evaluated in the most recent evaluation under such section 
     prior to the date of enactment of this Act, including by 
     monitoring and evaluating the test scores and other 
     information of such students.
       (b) Duty of Mayor To Ensure Institute Has All Information 
     Necessary To Carry Out Evaluations.--Section 3011(a)(1) (sec. 
     38-1853.11(a)(1), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Information necessary to carry out evaluations.--
     Ensure that all District of Columbia public schools and 
     District of Columbia public charter schools make available to 
     the Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of 
     Education all of the information the Institute requires to 
     carry out the assessments and perform the evaluations 
     required under section 3009(a).''.

     SEC. 9. FUNDING FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND 
                   PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) Mandatory Withholding of Funds for Failure To Comply 
     With Conditions.--Section 3011(b) (sec. 38-1853.11(b), D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Enforcement.--If, after reasonable notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary determines that the 
     Mayor has failed to comply with any of the requirements of 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may withhold from the Mayor, in 
     whole or in part--
       ``(1) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 3014(a)(2), if the failure to comply relates to 
     the District of Columbia public schools;
       ``(2) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 3014(a)(3), if the failure to comply relates to 
     the District of Columbia public charter schools; or
       ``(3) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated 
     under both paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 3014(a), if the 
     failure relates to both the District of Columbia public 
     schools and the District of Columbia public charter 
     schools.''.
       (b) Rules for Use of Funds Provided for Support of Public 
     Charter Schools.--Section 3011 (sec. 38-1853.11, D.C. 
     Official Code), as amended by section 7(b) and section 8(a), 
     is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Specific Rules Regarding Funds Provided for Support 
     of Public Charter Schools.--The following rules shall apply 
     with respect to the funds provided under this division for 
     the support of District of Columbia public charter schools:
       ``(1) The Secretary may direct the funds provided for any 
     fiscal year, or any portion thereof, to the Office of the 
     State Superintendent of Education of the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(2) The Office of the State Superintendent of Education 
     of the District of Columbia may transfer the funds to 
     subgrantees that are--
       ``(A) specific District of Columbia public charter schools 
     or networks of such schools; or
       ``(B) District of Columbia-based nonprofit organizations 
     with experience in successfully providing support or 
     assistance to District of Columbia public charter schools or 
     networks of such schools.
       ``(3) The funds provided under this division for the 
     support of District of Columbia public charter schools shall 
     be available to any District of Columbia public charter 
     school in good standing with the District of Columbia Charter 
     School Board, and the Office of the State Superintendent of 
     Education of the District of Columbia and the District of 
     Columbia Charter School Board may not restrict the 
     availability of such funds to certain types of schools on the 
     basis of the school's location, governing body, or the 
     school's facilities.''.

     SEC. 10. REVISION OF CURRENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

       Not later than the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year, 
     the Secretary of Education and the Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia shall revise the memorandum of understanding which 
     is in effect under section 3012(d) of the Scholarships for 
     Opportunity and Results Act as of the day before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act to address the following:
       (1) The amendments made by this Act.
       (2) The need to ensure that participating schools under the 
     Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act meet fire code 
     standards and maintain certificates of occupancy.
       (3) The need to ensure that District of Columbia public 
     schools and District of Columbia public charter schools meet 
     the requirements under such Act to comply with all reasonable 
     requests for information necessary to carry out the 
     evaluations required under section 3009(a) of such Act.

     SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3013 (sec. 38-1853.13, D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (11), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1), the following:
       ``(1) Core subject matter.--The term `core subject matter' 
     means--
       ``(A) mathematics;
       ``(B) science; and
       ``(C) English, reading, or language arts.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4)(B)(ii), as redesignated by paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``household with a'' before ``student''.

     SEC. 12. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3014 (sec. 38-1853.14, D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``and for each fiscal 
     year through fiscal year 2021''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under subsection 
     (a)(1), including amounts appropriated and available under 
     such subsection before the date of enactment of the SOAR 
     Reauthorization Act, shall remain available until 
     expended.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a)(2) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this 
     Act shall apply with respect to school year 2017-2018 and 
     each succeeding school year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4901.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


[[Page 5436]]

  We are here to pass an important bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill is H.R. 
4901, known as the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results 
Reauthorization Act, or SOAR.
  The SOAR Act continues a three-sector approach to education within 
the District of Columbia. The bill provides equal funding to D.C. 
public schools, D.C. public charter schools, and the Opportunity 
Scholarship Program which is commonly known as the OSP.
  The OSP provides scholarships to students of low-income families, 
many of whom would otherwise attend low-performing schools. This 
program is bringing about educational opportunities to those who need 
it most.
  Now, to some, this may sound familiar because in October of last 
year, we considered H.R. 10, also a bill to reauthorize the SOAR Act. 
But H.R. 4901 is very similar to H.R. 10; however, after H.R. 10 passed 
the House, changes were made to it through a bipartisan negotiation 
with the Senate. These changes actually strengthened the bill, and we 
are pleased to support this today.
  The new bill brings greater transparency and accountability to the 
OSP through increased reporting requirements. The new bill strengthens 
accreditation requirements, and the new bill clarifies congressional 
intent around the use of carryover funds and access to the OSP. Out of 
a commitment to regular order and the understanding of how important 
this legislation is, we wanted Members to have the opportunity to 
debate and vote on these changes, which we did in our committee, and it 
passed out of our committee. Thus, we introduced H.R. 4901.
  We improved the legislation, and now we are bringing it before the 
Chamber in an effort to pass the bill in its best possible form. I hope 
the House will see the value of this bill as it benefits families in 
the District, specifically low-income families in the District of 
Columbia.
  The average income of a family with an OSP student is $22,000 per 
year. Let me say that again. The average income of a family with an OSP 
student is $22,000. This program offers these families more than just a 
scholarship, it is a lifeline. One OSP parent went so far as to 
describe the OSP as her salvation.
  Mr. Speaker, the OSP is working. In the 2014-2015 school year, OSP 
students had a graduation rate of 90 percent. Ninety percent graduation 
rate. That should indicate to a lot of people that this thing is 
working. That is well above the national average of 82 percent and is 
certainly better than the average within the D.C. public schools, which 
is only about 64 percent.
  However, I would be remiss if I did not note that the D.C. public 
schools increased their graduation rate 6 percentage points from 2014 
to 2015, and we applaud that and hope that continues. That is in part 
because this three-sector approach is actually working.
  Opponents of the SOAR Act want to stop this legislation because they 
disagree with the OSP for purely ideological reasons. In fact, 
opponents, just like their supporters, know that OSP students do as 
well, if not better, on every measure compared to the public school 
counterparts. Opponents will likely even support allowing current OSP 
students to remain in the program until they finish high school.
  If the OSP is so bad, though, it makes no sense to allow children to 
remain in it. The truth is that the program works, and we should 
reauthorize it so it can work for even more children. Unfortunately, 
opponents of the OSP will seek to end the entire three-sector approach 
in an effort to simply stop the OSP.
  I do want to note that the Washington, D.C., Mayor, the D.C. Council 
chairman, and seven other members of the D.C. Council sent a letter to 
the congressional leadership urging the reauthorization of this 
program. The Mayor and a majority of the D.C. Council recognize the 
value of this legislation and are asking that we stand with them and 
not forsake the children of the District of Columbia.
  A March 2016 letter signed by the Mayor and 8 of the 13 Members of 
the D.C. Council supporting the SOAR Act will be entered into the 
Record. The letter states: ``These funds are critical to the gains that 
the District's public education system has seen in recent years.''
  It goes on to note how important the SOAR Act has been in maintaining 
and recruiting quality teachers and principals. District officials show 
strong support for this legislation, as does the Washington, D.C., 
community.
  We are thrilled to have found common ground on this bill, and I 
welcome the District's support. I thank them for their valuable work in 
getting this legislation to this point. I am also excited that the SOAR 
Act is supported by the Washington Post. I will be inserting in the 
Record a position they took on March 14, 2016, to that effect.
  Mr. Speaker, the SOAR Act's purpose is to improve education within 
the District, and I believe it is doing just that within public 
schools, charter schools, and the OSPs. It is providing families with a 
valuable choice, and it is allowing them to escape other situations 
that would not be nearly as conducive to their families.
  I don't understand why the critics of the OSP are so opposed to the 
program, especially since it produces graduation rates far above the 
national average. This feat is even more notable when you realize that 
the OSP achieves better graduation rates than D.C. public schools at 
only two-thirds of the cost, so you get better graduation rates, and it 
is two-thirds of the cost of D.C. public schools.
  I recognize the importance of our public education system and the 
need for public school improvement. That is why the legislation also 
authorizes funds for public education. We must recognize the reality 
before us. This past year, D.C. eighth graders had the lowest test 
scores in the Nation in math and reading, some of the most critical 
skills that they need to be successful in life. While D.C. public 
schools have made progress, clearly, much remains to be done.
  Mr. Speaker, students within the District should not have to wait for 
these changes to come about. They deserve an alternative, a quality 
education, and they deserve it now. Let's work to improve public 
education in the District, but let's not hold back current students 
while those improvements happen. Let's allow them every opportunity 
available, such as an opportunity scholarship.
  We are here today to debate a bill that works in every way to further 
the educational outcomes of Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, also let me just take a personal note to thank Speaker 
Boehner for his passion on this issue. For years he has championed 
this. He has done it in his private time, he did it in his public life, 
he did it as a Member of Congress, and he did it as the Speaker of the 
House. This was his. He championed this. It has been successful, and I 
am glad to carry the baton and make sure that there is school choice 
within Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as a mother, I believe parents should seize any and 
every educational opportunity available to their children, so I 
certainly have no criticism of my own constituents who have seized this 
opportunity. In fact, in order to avoid disruption of the education of 
the current voucher students, I believe they should be allowed to 
remain in the program until high school graduation, and President Obama 
has offered a compromise to allow them to do so.
  Consideration of this bill surely is unprecedented. Until today, I 
had never seen the House vote on virtually the same bill a second time 
in the same Congress, and that is about to happen here. The House, 
acted in October.
  Why is this House acting redundantly again? Shouldn't the focus be on 
the Republican-led Senate where neither this bill--which is virtually 
the same as the bill that was passed before--nor its Senate companion 
has moved?
  Last December, the Senate committee of jurisdiction canceled a 
scheduled markup of the bill to protect Republicans from this bill and 
especially from the civil rights amendments that had been proposed to 
the bill. Just last 


[[Page 5437]]


month, Chairman Chaffetz himself--who is the 
chairman of the authorizing committee, and the subcommittee--requested 
that the bill be included in the upcoming--the upcoming--2017 
appropriation bill because the chairman, knows that legislation on an 
appropriation is how this bill is going to be passed.
  The problem is that there is little congressional support for 
vouchers except for vouchers in the District of Columbia, where nobody 
can vote for anybody except this Member. Congress has refused to create 
a national voucher program. Just last year during reauthorization of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, both the House and the 
Senate voted on several national voucher amendments, and each failed. 
So you see, they don't want vouchers in their own districts.
  Moreover, the Congress has never authorized the D.C. voucher program 
in the light of day. When Congress first created the program in 2004, 
and then reauthorized it in 2011, it did so by adding the voucher bill 
as riders to appropriations bills. And to protect Republican Senators 
running for reelection this year, that is what is going to happen 
again. The Senate has never passed a standalone D.C. vouchers bill, and 
yet it is being reauthorized now for the third time.
  In this Congress alone, Republicans have introduced legislation to 
overturn D.C.'s gun safety laws, its laws on reproductive health, its 
laws on nondiscrimination, its laws on marijuana, on labor, on 
immigration, and on education. It is, therefore, ironic to hear 
Republicans favorably cite the support of some D.C. government 
officials for passage of this bill.
  Now, let me explain that because I don't want my colleagues to get 
away with mischaracterizing the position of the D.C. government on the 
bill before us today. When the House voted this bill last year, a 
majority of the D.C. Council wrote to Congress opposed to this voucher 
program. Last month, however, fearing the loss of $40 million for 
public and charter schools, a bare majority wrote in support of this 
bill. You can't blame them.
  I must say though, I am being hoisted on my own petard here. 
Ironically, the funding for public schools and public charter schools 
exists only because during the creation of the voucher program, I 
repeatedly said that funding for public and charter schools was the 
preference of D.C. residents. To his everlasting credit, the then-
Archbishop of Washington then insisted that public and charter schools 
also receive funding in conjunction with the voucher funding.
  The D.C. Mayor and a bare majority this year of the council sent a 
carefully crafted letter supporting this bill because they knew they 
were writing for the residents of the District of Columbia who do not 
support vouchers. Their letter did not support the voucher program 
itself, but referred only to the bill's public and charter school 
funding.

                              {time}  0930

  Those who signed the letter, by the way, were even more concerned 
that the Congress, instead, could pass the radical Cruz-Meadows bill, 
which would permit D.C. students to use local funds, commandeer local 
funds, from the D.C. treasury to pay for private schools.
  City officials recognized--and who can blame them--that Republicans 
have conditioned reauthorization of the public and charter school 
funding on reauthorization of the voucher funding. I understand their 
concern about losing public and charter school funding because it has 
been part of the city's education budget for a decade.
  There is, of course, no reason for a unique Federal voucher program 
in the District of Columbia, in particular. According to the study of 
the program's effectiveness mandated by Congress, by statute, the D.C. 
voucher program has failed in its stated purpose. That purpose was to 
improve academic achievement. The voucher program has not improved 
academic achievement, as measured by math and reading test scores of 
students overall or of students the program prioritized from low-
performing public schools.
  Republicans, rightly, were disappointed with these results, so guess 
what they did. Instead of getting rid of a failed program, they simply 
changed the evaluation. The prior reauthorizations required the 
program's evaluation to be ``conducted using the strongest possible 
research designed,'' and a randomized controlled trial--the gold 
standard--was therefore used.
  It is almost laughable when somebody changes the test in order to 
pass it. In contrast, this bill requires the evaluation to be 
conducted--this time--using an acceptable--that means any acceptable--
``quasi-experimental research design'' and expressly prohibits the 
randomized controlled trial that was mandated before.
  This dishonesty is transparent, Mr. Speaker. As researchers 
conducting an evaluation of the program point out, a randomized 
controlled study ``is especially important in the context of school 
choice because families wanting to apply for a choice program may have 
educational goals and aspirations that differ from the average 
family.''
  The voucher program is also unnecessary. The District of Columbia has 
an unusually robust public school choice system, and it is available to 
every student. Now, I would wager that the District's choice system is 
the best in the Nation, and here is what it is.
  Almost 50 percent of our children go to charter schools. Those 
charter schools were authorized when I worked with Speaker Newt 
Gingrich to allow charter schools instead of vouchers to be the 
District's alternative school system. For the public schools, 75 
percent of our children attend out-of-boundary public schools that they 
have chosen. So I ask any Member who has public choice that robust to 
make himself known during this debate.
  The D.C. voucher program also exempts students from protection of 
Federal civil rights laws that apply to public and federally funded 
programs. Under the voucher program, the Federal funding is considered 
assistance to the voucher student and not to the school, apparently in 
order to avoid these important mandates for our schools. Therefore, the 
program is not considered a federally funded program, although the 
money comes from Federal funds.
  This program is exempt from title IV and title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, from title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, from 
the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and titles 
II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
  Everybody knows that this program is going to be reauthorized as a 
rider on an appropriations bill, which is how the D.C. vouchers bill 
has always been enacted, in 2004 and again in 2011.
  This is a masquerade here this morning. I am sorry Members had to be 
held over. This could have been taken care of yesterday. Even if the 
bill is not reauthorized, however, everyone expects that Republicans 
will continue to fund the three sectors, as they have always done.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, it is correct that the Republicans have 
continued to fund the three-sector approach in Washington, D.C., and I 
am proud of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Messer), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4901, the 
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
  I want to commend Chairman Chaffetz for his work on this important 
policy and for continuing the legacy of former Speaker Boehner on this 
important issue.
  Make no mistake about it, thousands of kids have access to the 
American Dream because of Speaker Boehner's dedication to the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program and education choice across the 
country.
  I met one of those students in February during a hearing on Capitol 
Hill. Her name was Denisha Merriweather. Denisha provided some powerful 
testimony that I will not soon forget. She spoke of being locked in a 
failing 


[[Page 5438]]

school, and she said: ``When I was growing up, college was a 
dream that I didn't even know that I had, and if it weren't for an 
educational option Florida gave me 12 years ago, I wouldn't be here 
today.''
  Ms. Merriweather is the first in her family to graduate from high 
school and college, and she is now attending graduate school. That is 
powerful stuff, and it is just one example of the thousands of young 
people in America whose lives have been changed by school choice.
  As chairman of the Congressional School Choice Caucus, I believe 
every child in America deserves the same kind of opportunity that 
Denisha had. But right now, for the majority of students in this 
country, real educational choice only exists if you can afford it.
  Ask yourself this question: If your local school is failing your 
child and you can't afford to move and you can't afford to pay for 
private school, what options do you really have?
  Make no mistake about it, that is the truth for thousands of key 
people here in Washington, D.C., and, frankly, all across the country. 
They are locked in a failing school that is failing their child, and 
they can't afford to move and they can't afford to pay for a private 
school. They are stuck.
  That is why school choice and the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program matters. Programs like D.C. OSP empower parents to choose the 
best educational environment for their child, regardless of their 
income, their ZIP Code, or their lot in life. And despite some of the 
rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, this program takes zero 
dollars from D.C. Public Schools--zero dollars. Yet D.C. OSP has a big 
impact on D.C. students. In fact, the program lets more than 6,000 
students attend the school that gives them the best opportunity to 
succeed. And even better, an incredible 90 percent--90 percent--of D.C. 
OSP students graduate from high school on time, an incredible success.
  It turns out that empowering parents and empowering students works. 
We have miles to go before every kid in America has access to a great 
school. This issue is far bigger than just D.C. schools. But today's 
bill will ensure that thousands of kids in Washington, D.C., have an 
opportunity, and every one of those kids matter.
  This bill is worthy of our support. I ask my colleagues for their 
support.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is so concerned about the 
millions of parents who can't afford to send their children to private 
schools, his caucus had the perfect opportunity this year, because they 
have such a strong majority, to, in fact, pass voucher amendments, and 
they refused to do so for their own schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly), my friend.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the District of 
Columbia for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 4901.
  Contrary to its title and contrary to what you just heard, this 
voucher program for schoolchildren in the District of Columbia has 
neither expanded opportunities nor delivered results for those students 
and their families. It has actually proven to be an unwise and 
unwelcome use of tax dollars, which ought to be of great concern to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Yet, rather than call for 
increased scrutiny, they are forcing the House to once again vote on a 
bill on which this Chamber has already acted.
  In successive reports on the effectiveness of this program, the 
Department of Education has determined that students using these 
vouchers saw no statistically significant improvement in their overall 
achievement in math or reading--none.
  In addition, the Department found that both parents and students from 
schools in need of improvement, the program's intended beneficiaries, 
reported that their experience with the voucher program did not--not--
improve their level of satisfaction with the education system or the 
education they were receiving.
  I also find it extremely cynical that this reauthorization would 
weaken the very reporting requirements that have shown this program to 
be ineffective. When you don't like the findings, I guess we suppress 
them.
  Further, the Government Accountability Office has cited the program 
for not having sufficient financial controls and accountability 
measures, something I thought we favored. For example, the D.C. 
Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, which administers the 
program, repeatedly failed to comply with statutory financial reporting 
deadlines, and its ``policies and procedures lack detail in several 
areas related to school compliance and financial accounting'' to ensure 
Federal tax dollars are being used in accordance with the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I also hope the great irony of this legislation is not 
lost on my colleagues. Those who claim to support the conservative 
principles of small government would again authorize $60 million in 
taxpayer subsidies for a program that has failed to meet
expectations for both educational achievement and financial 
stewardship. I guess there are carve-outs for our ideological 
favorites.
  Further, self-proclaimed states' rights conservatives are once again 
willing to impose the will of Congress on a local government--the 
District of Columbia--and they do it because they can. So much for Big 
Brother; so much for telling somebody we know best.
  Finally, I want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle 
of the principles they espoused just last year when we worked in 
bipartisan fashion to pass legislation reforming No Child Left Behind.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. In their own explanatory material for the Every Student 
Succeeds Act, Republicans say the new reforms are intended to restore 
local control by returning responsibility for accountability and school 
improvement to State and local leaders. Why doesn't that apply here? 
Another ideological carve-out, Mr. Speaker.
  Congress has no business imposing its will on the schools and 
families of the District of Columbia in this fashion. They are not 
guinea pigs for our ideological favorites.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee.
  Mr. KLINE. I thank Chairman Chaffetz for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the SOAR 
Reauthorization Act, which will renew our vital investment in the 
children who live in the District of Columbia.
  In passing the Every Student Succeeds Act last year, we took 
important steps to support and encourage greater school choice for 
students and their families. These reforms empower parents to do what 
is best for their children's education, and they help ensure that all 
children are able to receive the excellent education they deserve 
regardless of their family's background, income, or ZIP Code. Helping 
students escape failing schools so they can pursue brighter futures is 
an important priority, and that is exactly what the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program does for children in our Nation's Capital.
  For more than 10 years now, the program has enabled thousands of 
students to pursue the quality education necessary to excel both in the 
classroom and later in life--and excel they do. In fact, last year, 90 
percent of 12th graders who received a scholarship through the program 
graduated from high school, and nearly 90 percent of them, Mr. Speaker, 
went on to pursue college degrees. The traditional D.C. public school 
system can make no such claim. These are very impressive results. 
Despite the claims of those who oppose these schools for, apparently, 
purely ideological, partisan reasons, with results like these--90 
percent graduate, and 90 percent of those go on to college--it makes 
those claims that these schools are not performing well, frankly, 
laughable.

[[Page 5439]]

  This legislation also authorizes support for D.C. public schools, and 
it will provide critical resources for its charter schools. I agree 
with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that the public 
charter schools in the District are performing well. They are giving 
some hope to mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers that 
their children will have a chance in life. I am very proud of those 
public charter schools. There are also parents--Presidents of the 
United States and so forth--who choose to send their kids to private 
schools, and that opportunity ought to exist for more children--for 
more students--in the District of Columbia. That is what the 
Opportunity Scholarship Program does. It provides another chance--
another avenue, another road to hope--for children in our Nation's 
Capital.
  Together, these measures are working to improve the traditional 
public schools that are struggling and that are still, too often, 
failing students--which is why there is a waiting line to get into 
charter schools and into private schools--and will make a positive 
impact in the lives of students across the District and will create 
much-needed educational opportunities for these children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want the gentleman from Minnesota to know that there are waiting 
lines in the District of Columbia to get into many D.C. public schools 
and, of course, into many charter schools. We also know nothing about 
the schools that tell us 90 percent of their children graduate because 
this House has no information on them. What we do know is that the 
randomized study took children in D.C. public schools and compared them 
to students at exactly the same levels in the voucher schools--no 
difference in overall achievement. That is how we measure achievement 
in the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the 
Workforce Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
4901, which would reauthorize the D.C. voucher program, known as the 
D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, through 2021.
  We don't spend enough money on education, so it is hard to justify 
diverting scarce public resources in order to finance private school 
education for a handful of students at the expense of the vast majority 
who attend public schools. Instead, we should focus our limited public 
resources on initiatives that improve education for all of our 
children. This is the promise of a public school education in the 
United States, but the voucher programs undermine that promise while 
hiding behind the guise of school choice for students in need.
  There are about 50 participating schools in the Washington, D.C., 
Opportunity Scholarship Program, but more than half of all of the 
participants are enrolled in just eight schools. Most of the schools in 
the program have higher tuition than the voucher covers, limiting the 
utility of the voucher and shifting the cost of education to the 
families that can't afford it--essentially, denying the opportunity to 
students whose families cannot afford the remainder of the tuition. 
Federal dollars are being provided to a small number of parents who can 
afford the choice and to others with students who are already enrolled 
in private schools when that money could have been used for our public 
school systems.
  Although there are a few who can participate in the program, as the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia said, the results are 
disappointing. Research consistently demonstrates that the D.C. voucher 
program is an ineffective program that does not increase achievement. 
The four reports produced by the Department of Education found no 
improvement in reading and math after entering the voucher program for 
students coming from the most struggling D.C. public schools, nor did 
they find any statistically significant difference in math and reading 
academic performance from D.C. public schools. On average, Mr. Speaker, 
these schools are, at best, average.
  When you cite statistics that say some may be doing well, you have to 
take into consideration that these are children from families who are 
very supportive of their children and that they would be doing well 
whether they were in the voucher program or not.
  In addition to the disappointing results, we also found the voucher 
participants were less likely to have access to English language 
programs, special education supports, counselors, and other vital 
supports that ensure that all students remain on the path of academic 
success.
  If the schools are not producing the promised results, why are we 
providing them with unrestricted Federal dollars?
  Mr. Speaker, we could have improved the bill. We have a closed rule, 
so amendments were not allowed, but there were several amendments that 
should have been considered that I had offered. One would have 
protected the civil rights of students at schools that receive vouchers 
by requiring schools to certify that they provide each student with 
applicable civil rights protections. Another would have required any 
school receiving funds under this program to comply with the same 
Federal data and reporting requirements that all public schools or 
other schools receiving Federal money have to provide. All of our 
congressional districts provide this information, but, unfortunately, 
it is not required under the voucher program.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to spend $20 million to fund education 
in the District of Columbia, we ought to use it to improve education 
for everyone, not just for a few. This bill uses the money to help a 
few parents by subsidizing tuition in private schools, which many were 
already attending, at the expense of many, and it extends a program 
that fails to actually improve the education for students in 
Washington, D.C.
  I join the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia in opposing this 
legislation.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, the graduation rate in the D.C. public 
schools is 64 percent. The graduation rate at the OSP program is 90 
percent. Those are results, and they are worth every penny.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), 
a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, there are few times in this House that we 
can see an immediate impact from legislation. A few months ago, I 
remember meeting some families who were given a choice in the SOAR Act. 
I remember seeing the pride in their faces, but what I remember most 
was the hope they had--a hope that was new, a new hope in the future. 
America has always been about opportunity. The SOAR Act does exactly 
what it says in its title--Scholarships for Opportunity and Results 
Act. The SOAR Act is impacting lives today, but it is changing lives 
forever.
  Upward mobility starts with a strong education. It reminds me of my 
background in working with some gospel music arrangers. I was surprised 
at the high volume of sales in this particular industry, and one of the 
arrangers summed it up this way. He said: ``Mark, ain't nobody likes it 
but the people.''
  To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who oppose the SOAR 
Act and who oppose parents in having this opportunity, let me say this: 
Ain't nobody likes it but the people.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah has 16 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Public schools in the United States and big cities are improving, and 
it should be noted that the D.C. Public Schools district continues to 
be the fastest improving urban school district in the United States, 
according to data 

[[Page 5440]]

released from the 2015 Trial Urban District 
Assessment. These schools deserve support. They are improving test 
scores unlike the voucher schools. In comparing the randomized study of 
those who wanted the voucher and didn't get it and who remained in the 
District public school system with those who wanted the voucher and got 
it, there was no difference in their math and English scores.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that point, if you select 
students from families who can afford the tuition and who are very 
supportive of their students, is it a surprise that they may do better 
in graduation rates than the average?
  Ms. NORTON. In reclaiming my time, the gentleman has brought up a 
very important point.
  By the way, some of the students who accept this voucher are already 
in the private schools, so they already could obviously afford the 
program. They are already attending the voucher schools, and they have 
now gotten vouchers. If you have some free Federal money, let me have 
some.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Would they be expected to do better, with 
their supportive families, than the average?
  Ms. NORTON. In reclaiming my time, I think they would be because they 
have families behind them, and they are being compared with students 
who often do not.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The gentlewoman pointed out that, with the 
randomized studies, there was no difference in the public schools and 
the voucher programs. Those studies are the conclusion of vigorous 
research that there was no difference; is that right?
  Ms. NORTON. In reclaiming my time, there was no difference, and yet 
improving academic performance was a stated reason for the voucher 
program.
  I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in opposing the 
reauthorization of the D.C. voucher program.
  Public schools are the foundation of the American education system. 
They represent a duty we have to provide every student in every 
community with an education that helps them realize their full 
potential. Vouchers prevent us from fulfilling that duty by redirecting 
taxpayer money away from our public schools, which are already 
underfunded, and into private institutions that do not open their doors 
to every child.
  As with previous versions of the SOAR Act, this bill does nothing to 
ensure that students with disabilities have access to private schools. 
It also discriminates against low-income families. In 64 percent of the 
participating D.C. schools, the tuition costs more than the voucher can 
cover, which, effectively, excludes families who cannot afford to pay 
the difference. Even students who can afford to attend private school 
can be excluded based on their prior academic achievement, language 
ability, or other discriminatory factors. I had hoped we could address 
these concerns through the amendment process, but the majority has not 
allowed amendments to the bill.
  You would expect private schools that can choose their own students 
to have exceptional records of student performance, but you would be 
wrong. Since 2007, there have been four congressionally mandated 
reports on the D.C. voucher program's impact on student achievement. 
Not one of those reports found a significant improvement in reading or 
math scores among participants.
  Mr. Speaker, with the Every Student Succeeds Act, we are entering a 
new era in education policy that holds real promise for students and 
educators across the country. We should be focusing our attention and 
resources on improving institutions that serve all students.
  I call on my colleagues to remember the obligation we have to every 
child and reject H.R. 4901.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the Civil War, Lincoln 
addressed the Ohio regiment and he said that the beauty of a free 
government is that it gives every individual an open field and fair 
chance for their intelligence, enterprise, and industry to flourish.
  That was something that he could speak of firsthand because he had 
grown up in the backwater. When you start talking about places like 
Illinois and Kentucky, that was so far removed from the corridors of 
power at that time and then he ends up being the President of the 
United States, that would have been unheard of in a country in Europe.
  I think right now, when you look at our country, you have people who 
are born and you are supposed to be able to make the most of your God-
given abilities, no matter your circumstances. Some people are born 
into privileged circumstances, and some people aren't. But if they have 
the desire to succeed, they need to be able to do that in America.
  Yet, what we find now is there are so many kids who grow up in 
communities that have really failing school systems, and I think the 
number one thing to be able to better yourself in our modern society is 
with education.
  Now, of course, the Federal Government doesn't have jurisdiction over 
K-12 education for the States, and I think that that is proper. I 
think, at times, the Federal Government has needled into that, and I 
think it has been counterproductive.
  We do have jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. You have some 
families who are really in dire straits. There is a big D.C. 
bureaucracy that is not performing up to expectations. So this program 
is a lifeline to those families.
  The average income is $22,000 a year, which is not a lot in any 
community, but in Washington that is very, very little. It gives them a 
lifeline to be able to have an alternative school and maybe be able to 
make the most of their God-given ability.
  Look, if the public school bureaucracy is doing well, then they can 
choose that. But if it is not and it is not working for them, then this 
gives them another option.
  This is something that--having done the hearing at the school like we 
did on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, these are kids 
who are thrilled to be in these schools. I am just very happy to 
support this effort. I appreciate the chairman's work on this. We need 
to give every child the chance to succeed.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I proudly support the reauthorization of 
the SOAR Act because the SOAR Act provides the choice that parents in 
the District deserve. I supported H.R. 10 and I now support H.R. 4901, 
which made important improvements to H.R. 10.
  This legislation we are considering today continues to empower low-
income families in D.C. to take advantage of opportunities they may not 
otherwise be able to do. That is because H.R. 4901 is a bill that 
focuses on people, public schools, charter schools, Opportunity 
Scholarship Program, people with choices in each of those areas.
  The SOAR Act is about improving the lives of students and families in 
the District in a profoundly personal way. Isn't that what true 
education is all about: personal achievement, improvement, and 
opportunity?
  Take the story of Carlos Battle, as written about in the National 
Journal and a recent book on educational choice. Carlos received a 
scholarship through the OSP and attended Assumption Catholic School and 
then Georgetown Day School for high school.
  As a result of this quality education, by choice, Carlos was able to 
attend Northeastern University in Boston. In fact, his mother says 
Carlos ``almost surely wouldn't have gone to college'' without the 
scholarship.

[[Page 5441]]

  Carlos now talks about how many of his friends from his time in 
public school are still in the neighborhood and not doing well for 
themselves, and he said some even are in jail.
  As he puts it: Everyone who was in my sixth grade class had the 
potential to achieve just as much as I did . . . that's just the 
unfortunate truth.
  The OSP allowed Carlos to take advantage of his potential, and he 
kept on achieving all the way to Northeastern.
  While in Boston, Carlos has spent time working at a nonprofit, 
helping give back to Boston public school students by helping them 
prepare for responsibilities of college where he has been able to lead 
workshops for public school students on college preparedness.
  He is currently preparing to pursue a Ph.D. in a career as a child 
psychologist, and that would be an appropriate time for an applause 
line.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 12 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as I begin my remarks, I know that the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia would understand my sense of 
pride in acknowledging that, in my district, the Victory Early College 
High School, which is in the Acres Homes neighborhood and a part of the 
Aldine Independent School District, a public school, will be 
celebrating the National Blue Ribbon award ceremony this morning. I 
offer them congratulations and express my disappointment for not being 
there.
  Obviously, they have been recognized as one of two schools in Houston 
nationally to earn the distinction of a National Blue Ribbon School at 
an awards ceremony in Washington, D.C., for closing the achievement 
gap. May I remind my colleagues that that is a public school system.
  So I rise in opposition and join my colleague from the District of 
Columbia to oppose H.R. 4901, which would reauthorize the District of 
Columbia private school voucher program and the Opportunity Scholarship 
Program for 5 years.
  The OSP program came about in 2004. In 2011, Congress reauthorized 
the OSP through fiscal year 2016. Under the SOAR Act, D.C. households 
with incomes that do not exceed 185 percent of the poverty line may 
receive an annual maximum voucher payment per student of $8,000 for 
grades K-8 and $12,000 for grades 9-12.
  We all know that private schools are much more expensive than that. 
So, in essence, this creates a small class that pays money to schools 
that have not been assessed as to whether or not they are quality 
schools. Private schools can cost as much as $50,000. Are we giving 
them $50,000 while we are dumbing down the public school system? What 
is so disturbing is: Where is the data?
  This bill, in particular, makes a significant change. The bill 
prohibits a control study group in making evaluations of the OSP and 
requires a less rigorous quasi-experimental research design than under 
the SOAR Act. Since 2004, almost $200 million has been spent on D.C. 
voucher schools. Can you imagine what we would be able to do if that 
money was invested?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what that could do?
  I hear that 50 percent of D.C. children are in charter schools, but 
50 percent of children in D.C. are using The Choice Program. What are 
we doing in America? By using this as a scapegoat, we are suggesting 
that we are not invested in public schools.
  Finally, the D.C. Mayor and City Council members, as I understand, 
were only advocating that: If you don't fund the voucher program, don't 
leave us out for the public and charter school program. There is a 
vigorous Choice Program in D.C.
  This bill undermines the public school system for all of us, and we 
should oppose the bill.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4901, the Scholarship for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act. 
As many will remember, the House passed a similar bill, H.R. 10, last 
year with 240 votes.
  H.R. 4901 makes three specific changes to H.R. 10 to ensure the D.C. 
scholarship program continues to run efficiently and effectively for 
the foreseeable future.
  First, this bill creates additional reporting requirements for the 
administrator of the scholarship program to ensure that the program is 
operating effectively.
  Second, it requires that any District of Columbia school that 
participates in this scholarship program must be accredited.
  Finally, the Department of Education has been withholding funds from 
the scholarship program and excluding qualified students from 
participating.
  H.R. 4901 ensures that the Department of Education cannot withhold 
funds from the scholarship program and that they cannot exclude 
students that are qualified to participate.
  With these changes, this D.C. school scholarship program can continue 
to run efficiently and allow low-income families to better their 
educational experience and opportunities.
  I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 4901.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the SOAR Act. I want 
to talk for a moment about the elephant in the room, and that is the 
way in which it has become something of a tug of war between those who 
believe in choice in education and those who don't.
  I think that, on the one hand, you have, for instance, taxpayer 
advocates who say: Wait a minute. If we are spending about $30,000 per 
student and getting the results that we are out of the system, 
something ought to change.
  There are other people who are advocates for the children of D.C., 
people like the former Mayor of this city, Anthony Williams, who said: 
Wait a minute. The scholarship program worked and it made a difference 
in people's lives.
  There are people who are advocates for the marketplace who say: Wait 
a minute. There has been a revolutionary degree of change in technology 
and in output and in productivity as a result of marketplace forces, 
and maybe those marketplace forces ought to be at work in education as 
well.
  I think, most of all, there are folks who acknowledge the fact that 
God makes every child different and that one size never fits all with 
the plethora of different personalities in children that are out there.
  On the other hand, you have folks who say: Wait a minute. Let's do it 
the way we have always done it. We had schools set up this way in the 
1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s, and in the 2000s. Let's do it the 
way we did it.
  But, in that process, kids may be locked into schools that aren't 
working for them and for their families. They may be literally 
imprisoned in schools that aren't working.
  So I think that what stands out about the SOAR Act is that it 
represents a set of keys so that kids would have additional choices. If 
we really believe that education is the cornerstone to opportunity in 
the 21st century, why not give kids as many keys as possible?
  It could be a key to a charter school, a traditional public school, 
or a private school. It is a key of their choice because kids are 
indeed so different. That is what this bill acknowledges.
  I commend the gentleman from Utah for what he has done on this front.
  
[[Page 5442]] 
  
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding 
and for his work on this important legislation.
  As a proud member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, 
I rise today in support of H.R. 4901, the Scholarship for Opportunity 
and Results Reauthorization Act, also known as the SOAR Act.
  This legislation would reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program, which provides scholarships to low-income students so they may 
attend a D.C. private school of their parents' choice.
  School choice is an effective tool that has proven to be successful 
in Washington, D.C. These scholarships have resulted in a 90 percent 
graduation rate, which is simply outstanding. I congratulate them on 
this.
  Both of my parents were educators who instilled in me the importance 
of a good education, and I believe we should extend this opportunity to 
those who might not otherwise have it.
  God created every child to be unique. As such, this legislation gives 
opportunities to students to receive an education chosen by their 
parents, those who know their child's needs best.
  I encourage my colleagues to stand up in support of school choice and 
the SOAR Act to empower both parents and the students.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding and for her advocacy for every child in the District of 
Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, last year we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, a 
good bill, but instead of figuring out how to fund this bipartisan bill 
through our budget and appropriations process, which apparently has 
broken down, we are here in a legislative deja vu redebating a nearly 
identical bad bill we passed just months ago that will take money away 
from our public schools.
  I am well aware of these attempts to divert money away from public 
schools and the failures of taxpayer-funded private schools. In the 
last 10 years, Wisconsin taxpayers have wasted $139 million of taxpayer 
dollars on private schools that were later terminated from the voucher 
program due to their lack of appropriate standards and accountability.
  Further, in Wisconsin, 79 percent of the students who received a 
taxpayer-subsidized voucher in 2013 were already attending private 
schools. The SOAR Act would allow kids already in private schools to 
receive this funding. That means taxpayer dollars are being used not to 
advocate education, but instead as a form of tax policy. What is worse 
is that the taxpayer-funded voucher schools both in my State and here 
in D.C. are not providing equitable resources to special needs students 
with disabilities.
  At the end of the day, this is also about results. Multiple 
Department of Education studies have concluded that the taxpayer-funded 
D.C. voucher program has failed to improve educational outcomes for 
participating students, and two U.S. Government Accountability Office 
reports have also identified its repeated management and accountability 
failures. Public funds should be used for public education which serves 
all students. It is that simple. I encourage everyone to oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
  I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Ms. NORTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to be funded, and you can't blame the 
District of Columbia for wanting the public school and charter school 
funding that is in the bill. This bill is going to be funded. It was a 
Boehner bill, now it is essentially a Ryan bill, and I do want that 
understood.
  I include in the Record the Council's letter from last year which 
opposed funding.

                                           Council of the District


                                                  of Columbia,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 2015.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairperson, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, U.S. 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Chairperson Chaffetz: We write as locally elected officials 
     to express our opposition to renewed efforts to expand a 
     federally funded school voucher program in the District of 
     Columbia. We appreciate your interest in providing support to 
     public education in the District. We strongly believe, 
     however, that federal funds should be invested in the 
     existing public education system--both public schools and 
     public charter schools--rather than being diverted to private 
     schools.
       We support the decision by Congress and the President 
     several years ago to phase out the voucher program. Multiple 
     U.S. Department of Education reports indicate that the 
     program has not lived up to the promises made by proponents. 
     These studies along with two troubling Government 
     Accountability Office reports have also revealed that many of 
     the students participating in the voucher program attend 
     private schools with fewer resources and lower standards than 
     our public schools. The evidence is clear that the use of 
     vouchers has had no statistically significant impact on 
     overall student achievement in math or reading, or for 
     students from schools in need of improvement.
       We have serious concerns about using government funds to 
     send our students to private schools that do not have to 
     adhere to the same standards and accountability as do public 
     and public charter schools. For example, private religious 
     schools, which 80% of students with vouchers attend, operate 
     outside the non-discrimination provisions of the D.C. Human 
     Rights Act. Moreover, the voucher proposal is inequitable: if 
     fully funded, the authorization would provide many more 
     dollars per student for vouchers than is allocated per 
     student in public schools and public charter schools.
       Although we believe that students who are already receiving 
     a voucher should have the opportunity to maintain and use 
     that voucher through graduation from high school, we do not 
     support expansion of the program to new students. The 
     District devotes considerable funds to public education, and 
     our local policies promote choice for parents. Indeed, over 
     the past decade the quality of public education in D.C. has 
     increased, as a result of reforms and targeted investment. 
     Families can choose from an array of educational institutions 
     based on publicly--available performance metrics, both within 
     the D.C. Public Schools system and among the myriad public 
     charter schools. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has 
     called the progress of D.C. Public Schools ``remarkable'', 
     while the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has 
     ranked the District's charter sector as the best in the 
     country.
       Despite such ample evidence that the Congressionally 
     imposed voucher program is ineffective, while D.C. public 
     schools improve every year, some members of Congress continue 
     to see our city as their personal petri dish. It is insulting 
     to our constituents, who vote for us but not for any voting 
     member of Congress, that some of your colleagues push their 
     personal agendas on D.C. in a way they could never do in 
     their home states. Attacking D.C. home rule, including any 
     expansion of the voucher program, is irresponsible governing 
     on the part of Congress.
       We call on you to respect the wishes of the District's 
     elected officials on the quintessentially local matter of 
     education as you consider this issue.
           Sincerely,
     David Grosso,
       D.C. Council, At-Large, Chairperson, Committee on 
     Education.
     Charles Allen,
       D.C. Council, Ward 6, Member, Committee on Education.
     LaRuby May,
       D.C. Council, Ward 8.
     Elissa Silverman,
       D.C. Council, At-Large.
     Anita Bonds,
       D.C. Council, At-Large, Member, Committee on Education.
     Yvette Alexander,
       D.C. Council, Ward 7, Member, Committee on Education.
     Brianne Nadeau,
       D.C. Council, Ward 1.
     Jack Evans,
       D.C. Council, Ward 2.
       
[[Page 5443]]       

  Ms. NORTON. This year, of course, recognizing that they might lose 
$40 million, there was another bill, and a bare majority said: Give us 
the money.
  But I want you to understand what the letter from the District of 
Columbia said.
  ``A reauthorization of the SOAR Act would help safeguard $150 million 
in Federal funds for the D.C. Public Schools and public charter schools 
over 5 years.''
  And they go on to say: ``SOAR Act funding for D.C. Public Schools has 
been used to support initiatives that reward and increase retention of 
high performing teachers and principals. The funds also help attract 
more high quality teachers and principals to D.C. Public Schools and 
improve the efficiency with which schools are run.
  ``After years of decline, D.C. public school enrollment is rising for 
the first time in decades. Schools that previously struggled to fill 
their pre-kindergarten seats have waiting lists and other schools are 
attracting families back into the system at grade levels that have 
historically lost students.''
  Clearly, we have a school system--and I cannot help but identify with 
them--that does not want to lose $40 million for D.C. public schools 
and D.C. charter schools. I don't ask anybody to change their vote. 
This program is going to be funded.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In conclusion, let me read the first sentence of the first paragraph 
from the D.C. Mayor, as well as the majority of the Council. ``As Mayor 
and members of the Council of the District of Columbia, we support the 
three-sector Federal funding approach for D.C.'s K-12 education system 
that is authorized in the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results, the 
SOAR Act.''
  It is clear this is producing results. I find it a little bit 
troubling when the opposition to the SOAR Act people stand up and say: 
Well, it is not producing results.
  I will reiterate again that the average graduation rate at the D.C. 
public schools is 64 percent. The graduation rate for somebody who 
obtains the scholarship is 90 percent, and 92 percent of those people 
who get that scholarship go on to college. Those are laudable goals in 
any, any scenario.
  And while this is done, this education is literally two-thirds of the 
cost, and it goes to people who really do deserve and need it, because 
the average annual income for somebody who is a recipient of this 
scholarship is $22,000. A $22,000 income in the District of Columbia 
for someone with kids is difficult, at best.
  I want to thank, again, Speaker Boehner for his passion on school 
choice and particularly the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship. I also want 
to thank our Senate colleague, Senator Tim Scott. Senator Scott joined 
us in a field hearing that we had in the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform. He is a true believer and is passionate about school 
choice and the need to give everybody the best possible opportunities 
that we can.
  So I think we have had a good debate. We had a good markup and 
discussion within the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I 
hope that we pass this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 4901, the 
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Reauthorization Act.
  Members of Congress, believe that together--the key to the future of 
our great nation is the quality of the education we provide our 
children.
  We all know the story of some District of Columbia public schools: 
Low graduation rates, high dropout rates, low math and reading scores. 
And, we can all agree that the children in the District deserve a first 
class education.
  A decade ago, I had the honor to Chair the District of Columbia 
Appropriations Subcommittee. In that capacity, we worked to create a 
program to give a `hand-up' to children in Washington, DC. We built a 
`three-sector' approach: public schools, charter schools, and the 
latter, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides parents 
with funds to send their children to private or parochial schools.
  The bill before us today will reauthorize the three-sector approach 
to school reform in the District of Columbia--including the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program--through FY 2021.
  The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is a huge success. Last year 
alone 3,246 students submitted applications to participate in these 
scholarships and the program accepted 1,244 students.
  88 percent of high school graduates in 2015, who were Opportunity 
Scholarship recipients, enrolled at a 2- or 4-year college.
  Congress should listen to the voices of parents and students and 
continue to work to ensure that this not only survives, but grows.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this critical 
legislation.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Reid, 
     Speaker Ryan, and Minority Leader Pelosi: As Mayor and 
     members of the Council of the District of Columbia, we 
     support the three-sector federal funding approach for DC's K-
     12 education system that is authorized in the Scholarships 
     for Opportunities and Results (SOAR) ACT. Our support for the 
     SOAR Act is rooted in the importance we place on the much-
     needed federal funding for DC Public Schools (DCPS) and 
     public charter schools which totaled $30 million in FY2016. 
     This funding is provided via our DC federal payments and does 
     not take away from our state formula funding for education; 
     rather, it adds to it. A reauthorization of the SOAR Act 
     would help safeguard $150 million in federal funds for DCPS 
     and public charter schools over five years. These funds are 
     critical to the gains that the District's public education 
     system has seen in recent years.
       In addition, we are very concerned about a bill that was 
     recently introduced in Congress, the Educational Freedom 
     Accounts Act (H.R. 4426/S. 2455), which would require the 
     District of Columbia to re-direct local funds from DCPS and 
     the public charter schools toward Educational Savings 
     Accounts for DC students who want to attend private schools. 
     This bill would be harmful to the District's progress on 
     education and we strongly oppose it. SOAR Act reauthorization 
     is far a better alternative and works for our families and 
     school system.
       SOAR Act funding for DCPS has been used to support 
     initiatives that reward and increase retention of performing 
     teachers and principals. The funds also help attract more 
     high quality teachers and principals to DCPS and to improve 
     the efficiency with which schools are run. After years of 
     decline, DCPS enrollment is rising for the first time in 
     decades. Schools that previously struggled to fill their 
     prekindergarten seats have waiting lists and other schools 
     are attracting families back into the system at grade levels 
     that have historically lost students.
       Public charter schools in the District represent 44 percent 
     of the public school population of more than 85,000 students 
     with 62 public charter schools on 115 campuses. Since FY2004, 
     federal funds authorized in the SOAR Act have supported the 
     acquisition, renovation, modernization, and expansion of 
     charter school facilities in the District. These funds have 
     also been used to improve academic achievement, teacher and 
     leader quality and recruitment, instructional support, and 
     graduation pathways.
       The SOAR Act provides equal amounts of federal funding for 
     the DCPS, public charter schools and the OSP. We understand 
     that these funding streams are inextricably linked. We urge 
     you to ensure that the SOAR Reauthorization Act (S. 2171/H.R. 
     10) becomes law before the end of this Congress so that this 
     critical funding for K-12 education in the District of 
     Columbia is not put in jeopardy.
           Sincerely,
         Muriel Bowser, Mayor; LaRuby May, Councilmember; Brandon 
           T. Todd, Councilmember; Mary Cheh, Councilmember; Phil 
           Mendelson, Chairman; Vincent Orange, Councilmember; 
           Anita Bonds, Councilmember; Yvette M. Alexander, 
           Councilmember; Kenyon R. McDuffie, Councilmember.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2016]

       For D.C., Preauthorizing School Choice Is the Right Choice

                          (By Editorial Board)

       IN THEIR zeal to kill off the federally funded scholarship 
     program for poor D.C. students, opponents have peddled the 
     fiction that Congress foisted the program on an unwilling 
     city. In fact, the program was backed enthusiastically by 
     then-Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) and a key D.C. Council 
     member, and parent demand for scholarships far outstrips 
     supply. So let's hope that a letter from Mayor Muriel E. 
     Bowser (D) and a majority of the council urging continued 
     funding for 
     
[[Page 5444]]     
     
     the program finally puts the myth to rest and 
     helps allow more students to benefit from the program.
       The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides 
     needy students with vouchers to attend private schools of 
     their choice, is up for reauthorization. As has happened 
     before with all-too-depressing frequency since the 
     scholarships were established in 2004, the program is under 
     attack from unions and other opponents. If Congress fails to 
     act, the city will also lose out on millions of dollars that 
     go to its traditional and charter public schools as part of 
     the three-sector federal funding deal.
       The very real danger of the District losing $150 million in 
     federal funds over five years apparently finally sunk in with 
     members of the council. Three members who previously had 
     urged that the program be killed joined Ms. Bowser and five 
     other members, including council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), 
     in a March 7 letter to congressional leaders in support of 
     the Scholarships for Opportunities and Results (SOAR) Act. 
     House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) in a statement called the 
     support of the mayor and council ``an important boost'' in 
     the effort to get reauthorization to the president's desk
       We hope so. Mr. Ryan is right that ``when we give more 
     families a choice, more students succeed.'' Uncertainty about 
     the future of the program is the alleged reason the Education 
     Department has, for several years, put a hold on funds that 
     would allow additional students into the program. Officials 
     with Serving Our Children, the nonprofit that took over 
     administration of the scholarships in October, told us there 
     are more than 1,900 applicants, with more expected, for just 
     146 new spots next year. If Congress doesn't reauthorize the 
     program, funding could dry up, with no new students accepted 
     after the 2016-2017 school year. The scholarships provide a 
     lifeline to low-income and underserved families, giving them 
     the school choice that more affluent families take as a 
     given. And because the program results in more federal money 
     for D.C. public education and not less--another myth advanced 
     by opponents--it's time for Congress to act.

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4901, 
as I did when the House debated a nearly identical measure last 
October.
  We have been told that the purpose of this bill is to help all DC 
children get a better education.
  I strongly support that objective, but this bill does not.
  Let me be crystal clear: public funds should support public 
education.
  But this bill proposes to spend $100 million dollars over five years 
to fund vouchers to send students in the District of Columbia to 
private schools.
  Coming from the city of Baltimore, I understand the complexities of 
turning around struggling inner city schools.
  Almost ten years ago, I became deeply involved in improving one of my 
own neighborhood schools, the Maritime Industries Academy.
  It takes vision, commitment, accountability and, yes, resources to 
begin the process of turning troubled schools around.
  However, it is extremely difficult to turn around public schools if 
we divert public resources to private schools.
  By dividing funding among DC Public Schools, DC Charter Schools, and 
private school vouchers, this bill provides one-third of its total 
funding to voucher students, a tiny fraction of the District's 
students.
  The lack of equity is stunning. Our focus should be on maximizing the 
impact of the federal government's limited resources to serve ALL of 
the District's students.
  This program was last authorized in 2011, over my strong objection 
and along party lines, despite the fact that the study on the program's 
impacts mandated by law found that the use of vouchers had no effect on 
academic achievement, as measured by math and reading test scores.
  Vouchers also had no impact on students' perceptions of school safety 
and satisfaction.
  We have heard all the Republican rhetoric justifying massive cuts to 
education funding--all the talk about budget constraints, about 
tightening our belts, and about making sacrifices.
  But apparently all that goes out the window when Republicans want to 
give 100 million dollars in taxpayer funds to private schools.
  As a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of quality 
public education, I believe our highest priority must be to use limited 
taxpayer dollars to support programs that will truly meet the 
educational needs of all children.
  This bill does not do that. So I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 
4901.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule 
and the underlying bill, H.R. 4901, the Scholarships for Opportunity 
and Results Reauthorization (SOAR) Act.
  H.R. 4901 would reauthorize the District of Columbia's private school 
voucher program, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), for five 
years through 2021.
  Simply put, this bill diverts much needed resources from the D.C. 
public school system into this unsuccessful and counterproductive 
voucher program.
  We know that this voucher program has failed to improve academic 
achievement, threatens vital civil rights for students, undermines 
constitutional protections, and is poorly managed.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another Republican attack on the 
District of Columbia's right to self-governance.
  Even worse, the Districts' government did not request this 
reauthorization--nor did its representative, Congresswoman Eleanor 
Holmes Norton.
  If the District wants to establish a voucher program, it has the 
authority to do so.
  But it hasn't for many of the reasons I listed above.
  Mr. Speaker, we should work to fully fund our public schools and 
ensure equal access to education for all students--not funnel 
additional funds into this ineffective and poorly managed program.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Scholarships 
for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
  Plenty of members have raised legitimate concerns with this bill, not 
the least of which is that students, teachers, parents, administrators, 
and the community in D.C. did not ask for this system to be forced on 
them.
  A specific concern: The lack of protections for students with 
disabilities, arguably those who need protections the most.
  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--colloquially known 
as IDEA--has ensured for decades that children with disabilities 
throughout the nation receive the services and accommodations they 
need. IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early 
intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 
million eligible infants, toddlers, children and youth with 
disabilities.
  Voucher schools should not get a free pass because of accounting 
gimmicks allowed under the voucher program.
  When IDEA was passed, it did not have a clause that said ``protect 
all students with disabilities except those students who choose to go 
to voucher schools.'' I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and 
stand up for the civil rights that we all agreed every student 
deserves.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Ted Lieu of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     4901 to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Insert after section 7 the following new section:

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

       Section 3008(a) (sec. 38-1853.08(a), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended by inserting ``actual or perceived sexual orientation 
     or gender identity,'' after ``national origin,''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment 
to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. 
If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  My amendment would simply change the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program so that it could not discriminate against students based on 
sexual orientation or gender identity.
  Sadly, we know that LGBT kids are often victims of bullying and hate. 
According to a survey by the Human 

[[Page 5445]]

Rights Campaign, LGBT youth were 
twice as likely as their non-LGBT peers to report being verbally 
harassed and excluded.
  Moreover, misguided anti-LGBT laws, such as those passed in North 
Carolina and Mississippi, continue to send a message that being LGBT is 
not okay, and that is wrong. As one of my Republican colleagues earlier 
today on the floor stated, God makes every child different. It is wrong 
to systematically discriminate against students because they are LGBT.
  We need to send our kids a message that saying whom they love and the 
gender they identify with does not dictate their self-worth, and it 
certainly should not dictate whether or not they can get a voucher. I 
move that we begin to do this right now by passing my amendment to 
prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. 
Being LGBTQ is not a medical condition that needs to be cured. It is 
instead a beautiful reflection of what it means to be a human being.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, we went through regular order in our 
committee. We had field hearings. We had a markup. The gentleman was 
free to offer an amendment in committee. That did not happen.
  This is a school choice bill. This is a bill that gives parents the 
opportunity to make choices about where their students can attend, and 
this scholarship program has been a very valuable tool. I am opposed to 
the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 167, 
nays 228, not voting 38, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 178]

                               YEAS--167

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--228

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Carson (IN)
     Collins (NY)
     Costa
     Crawford
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Himes
     Issa
     Johnson (GA)
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Labrador
     MacArthur
     Miller (MI)
     Newhouse
     Payne
     Reed
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (TX)
     Stutzman
     Takai
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1044

  Messrs. ROKITA, DUFFY, and TROTT changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. CAPUANO, JEFFRIES, Ms. MOORE, and Mr. HOYER changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 181, not voting 28, as follows:


[[Page 5446]]

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               AYES--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Calvert
     Carson (IN)
     Collins (NY)
     Crawford
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Issa
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Labrador
     MacArthur
     Newhouse
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (TX)
     Stutzman
     Takai
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1051

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 2016, I was unable to 
vote on H.R. 4901, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results 
Reauthorization Act. I would have voted in support of final passage of 
H.R. 4901, rollcall No. 179, had I been present.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 179 on H.R. 4901, I am not 
recorded because I was absent for personal reasons. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I missed a vote on H.R. 4901 in order to 
attend a family wedding. Had I been present for this vote, I would have 
voted ``no'' on rollcall 179 (H.R. 4901).


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 2016, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On 
rollcall No. 178, Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 4901, I would have 
voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 179, Scholarships for Opportunity and 
Results Reauthorization Act, H.R. 4901, I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on April 29, 2016, due to a 
medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted: On The 
Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 4901, I would have voted ``yea.'' On 
Passage of H.R. 4901, I would have voted ``nay.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House 
chamber for votes on Friday, April 29, 2016. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 178 and ``nay'' on rollcall 
vote 179.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 2016, I was 
unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 178 and 179. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 178 and ``no'' on 
rollcall 179.

                          ____________________