Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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.

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. 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.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here to pass an important bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill is H.R. 4901, known as the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act, or SOAR. The SOAR Act continues a three-sector approach to education within the District of Columbia. The bill provides equal funding to D.C. public schools, D.C. public charter schools, and the Opportunity Scholarship Program which is commonly known as the OSP. The OSP provides scholarships to students of low-income families, many of whom would otherwise attend low-performing schools. This program is bringing about educational opportunities to those who need it most. Now, to some, this may sound familiar because in October of last year, we considered H.R. 10, also a bill to reauthorize the SOAR Act. But H.R. 4901 is very similar to H.R. 10; however, after H.R. 10 passed the House, changes were made to it through a bipartisan negotiation with the Senate. These changes actually strengthened the bill, and we are pleased to support this today. The new bill brings greater transparency and accountability to the OSP through increased reporting requirements. The new bill strengthens accreditation requirements, and the new bill clarifies congressional intent around the use of carryover funds and access to the OSP. Out of a commitment to regular order and the understanding of how important this legislation is, we wanted Members to have the opportunity to debate and vote on these changes, which we did in our committee, and it passed out of our committee. Thus, we introduced H.R. 4901. We improved the legislation, and now we are bringing it before the Chamber in an effort to pass the bill in its best possible form. I hope the House will see the value of this bill as it benefits families in the District, specifically low-income families in the District of Columbia. The average income of a family with an OSP student is $22,000 per year. Let me say that again. The average income of a family with an OSP student is $22,000. This program offers these families more than just a scholarship, it is a lifeline. One OSP parent went so far as to describe the OSP as her salvation. Mr. Speaker, the OSP is working. In the 2014-2015 school year, OSP students had a graduation rate of 90 percent. Ninety percent graduation rate. That should indicate to a lot of people that this thing is working. That is well above the national average of 82 percent and is certainly better than the average within the D.C. public schools, which is only about 64 percent. However, I would be remiss if I did not note that the D.C. public schools increased their graduation rate 6 percentage points from 2014 to 2015, and we applaud that and hope that continues. That is in part because this three-sector approach is actually working. Opponents of the SOAR Act want to stop this legislation because they disagree with the OSP for purely ideological reasons. In fact, opponents, just like their supporters, know that OSP students do as well, if not better, on every measure compared to the public school counterparts. Opponents will likely even support allowing current OSP students to remain in the program until they finish high school. If the OSP is so bad, though, it makes no sense to allow children to remain in it. The truth is that the program works, and we should reauthorize it so it can work for even more children. Unfortunately, opponents of the OSP will seek to end the entire three-sector approach in an effort to simply stop the OSP. I do want to note that the Washington, D.C., Mayor, the D.C. Council chairman, and seven other members of the D.C. Council sent a letter to the congressional leadership urging the reauthorization of this program. The Mayor and a majority of the D.C. Council recognize the value of this legislation and are asking that we stand with them and not forsake the children of the District of Columbia. A March 2016 letter signed by the Mayor and 8 of the 13 Members of the D.C. Council supporting the SOAR Act will be entered into the Record. The letter states: ``These funds are critical to the gains that the District's public education system has seen in recent years.'' It goes on to note how important the SOAR Act has been in maintaining and recruiting quality teachers and principals. District officials show strong support for this legislation, as does the Washington, D.C., community. We are thrilled to have found common ground on this bill, and I welcome the District's support. I thank them for their valuable work in getting this legislation to this point. I am also excited that the SOAR Act is supported by the Washington Post. I will be inserting in the Record a position they took on March 14, 2016, to that effect. Mr. Speaker, the SOAR Act's purpose is to improve education within the District, and I believe it is doing just that within public schools, charter schools, and the OSPs. It is providing families with a valuable choice, and it is allowing them to escape other situations that would not be nearly as conducive to their families. I don't understand why the critics of the OSP are so opposed to the program, especially since it produces graduation rates far above the national average. This feat is even more notable when you realize that the OSP achieves better graduation rates than D.C. public schools at only two-thirds of the cost, so you get better graduation rates, and it is two-thirds of the cost of D.C. public schools. I recognize the importance of our public education system and the need for public school improvement. That is why the legislation also authorizes funds for public education. We must recognize the reality before us. This past year, D.C. eighth graders had the lowest test scores in the Nation in math and reading, some of the most critical skills that they need to be successful in life. While D.C. public schools have made progress, clearly, much remains to be done. Mr. Speaker, students within the District should not have to wait for these changes to come about. They deserve an alternative, a quality education, and they deserve it now. Let's work to improve public education in the District, but let's not hold back current students while those improvements happen. Let's allow them every opportunity available, such as an opportunity scholarship. We are here today to debate a bill that works in every way to further the educational outcomes of Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, also let me just take a personal note to thank Speaker Boehner for his passion on this issue. For years he has championed this. He has done it in his private time, he did it in his public life, he did it as a Member of Congress, and he did it as the Speaker of the House. This was his. He championed this. It has been successful, and I am glad to carry the baton and make sure that there is school choice within Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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. 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.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Sinclair Oil for celebrating 100 years of success in the oil and gas industry. Headquartered in Utah, Sinclair Oil has served as a shining example of American excellence for a century. Harry Ford Sinclair was 25 when he lost his father's drugstore in 1901 and began selling lumber for oil derricks. An incredibly savvy individual, Sinclair was soon buying and selling small oil leases, eventually attracting investors. Sinclair's immediate success was remarkable, he became a millionaire by the age of 30 and founded the Sinclair Oil and Refining Corporation in 1916. The success of Sinclair Oil has stood the test of time and bolstered the United States economy. Sinclair saved hundreds of jobs during the Great Depression era by buying up dying competitors. During World War II, Sinclair's oil supported the Allied effort, and Sinclair's Dinoland exhibit was a highlight of the 1960s World's Fair. In 1976, self-made legend Earl Holding acquired Sinclair Oil. Under Holding's leadership, Sinclair Oil continued its growth as a beacon of American excellence. Holding's work at Sinclair is revered for his commitment to the company's culture and his incredible dedication to hard work. I look forward to the future of Sinclair Oil, as it continues to fuel the economy and provide jobs to hardworking Americans. I am proud to congratulate Sinclair Oil on achieving 100 years of success today. Sinclair's accomplishments have not only been of great benefit to Utah, but to the United States. I thank CEO Ross Matthews, Earl Holding, and the Sinclair Oil family for their contributions.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I prefer to have the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, who is the chief sponsor of this bill, speak first on this issue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4359 is a commonsense solution to address the misuse of administrative leave for misconduct or performance issues. Unfortunately, it has been commonplace for the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to hear stories of Federal employees who remain on administrative leave for months, or years, at a time. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. The overwhelming majority of people who work for the Federal Government are good, honest, decent, patriotic people who care. They work hard, they are trying to serve their country, and they put in an honest day's work. But we do have some bad apples. Every once in a while, they show up, and they start working for the Federal Government. They create problems and they create mayhem. Unfortunately, we have to tighten the rules surrounding their situation because we have had a number of Federal employees that have remained on administrative leave sometimes not just for days, sometimes not just for weeks. Sometimes this drags on for months and for years-- years--to be on administrative leave. While on administrative leave, these employees receive full pay and benefits despite the fact that they are not working. There are going to be extraordinary circumstances, but this is happening far too often. It is particularly difficult to understand how the IRS could, for example, justify allowing Lois Lerner to sit on administrative leave for 4 months before her retirement. She was an individual who abused her power as a Federal employee by engaging in the political targeting of American citizens. But she is not alone. This is certainly not a bill just about her situation. Every year, hundreds, if not thousands, of Federal employees are under investigation for significant misconduct and remain on administrative leave for far longer than is necessary to complete an investigation. One reason administrative leave has become such a significant problem is because agencies simply find it easier to keep an employee on administrative leave. It is the path of least resistance. This means that some individuals face little to no penalty for significant misconduct and are all too often permitted to remain on administrative leave until they are able to retire. Mr. Speaker, abuse of administrative leave is a real problem. H.R. 4359 will protect American taxpayer dollars from being further wasted. Consider one example highlighted by the inspector general for the Environmental Protection Agency, who found an employee earning $120,000 a year annually while watching pornography on the job. This employee was placed on administrative leave for a year--a year. I believe, in this particular case, this person actually admitted to doing it. It wasn't just a casual oops. This person was watching for literally hours upon hours each day and admitted it. They put him on administrative leave, and this went on for a year. Why should the American taxpayers have to pay for that? It is a clear waste of our dollars. The American people deserve better, and so do the employees who work around this person. According to the Government Accountability Office report, the GAO, which reviewed the use of administrative leave between the years 2011 and 2013, 263 Federal employees were on administrative leave for more than a year at the 24 agencies reviewed. GAO found that those individuals on administrative leave cost the people, the American taxpayers, more than $31 million. Why should we have to pay for that? It is an astonishing amount of money to pay for Federal employees, and they are doing absolutely nothing. They can, essentially, go wherever they want to go, and it is, essentially, a paid vacation. It also sends the wrong message to the hardworking Americans from whom we levee taxes. We cannot use tax dollars to pay misbehaving or poor-performing Federal employees. There are often situations that come up where the employees need a fair chance to defend themselves. But again, under this bill, it gives them plenty of time to do that. If there needs to be an extension, there can be an extension; but if there is not timely disciplinary action, if any disciplinary action at all, for their performance issues, the American taxpayers are left holding the bag and the expense. Mr. Speaker, agencies are abusing the system of administrative leave and failing to explain why. In a report conducted by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, agencies were found to be opaque about why they were using administrative leave, or completely nonresponsive, when Senator Grassley inquired about 58 employees at the Department of Defense that they had on administrative leave for more than a year. Think about that. At the DOD, the Department of Defense, they had 58 employees who had been on administrative leave for more than a year, and the Department of Defense just decided not to respond, just literally did not respond. Mr. Speaker, I understand the need and utility of administrative leave. When used properly, administrative leave provides agencies with the flexibility needed to better manage human resources and to get to the bottom of certain situations, but it has become a tool that agencies hide behind with far too little oversight and accountability. The shortcomings of the current system need to end, and this bill that I am the chief sponsor of will curb these abuses. Specifically, this legislation will limit the use of administrative leave for misconduct or performance issues to 14 days per year in order to push agencies to complete their investigations quickly or to find acceptable alternate work for the individual to perform during such an investigation. This is fair to the employee, as well as the management, as well as the American taxpayers. Rather than allowing indefinite leave, agencies will have to take disciplinary action against bad actors, which will serve to bring greater accountability to the Federal workforce. The bill is also critical to protecting whistleblowers. The Office of Special Counsel, or the OSC, has a responsibility in the Federal Government to investigate potential reprisal and petition the Merit Systems Protection Board to stop retaliatory actions. However, being put on administrative leave does not constitute a personnel action that is reviewable by the OSC. Thus, as long as a whistleblower is placed on administrative leave, he or she is left in limbo at the discretion of the agency with no right to appeal their status. Because of this, I believe that the bill before us, H.R. 4359, will go a long way to help reducing retaliation and protect whistleblowers by barring agencies from leaving employees on indefinite administrative leave. Mr. Speaker, getting this legislation to the floor today, I am proud to say we have been able to work collaboratively in a bipartisan way. I particularly want to thank Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts for his passion on this issue and working with us. We incorporated some of those suggestions into the bill today. We have altered the bill to give the agencies the option to extend the use of administrative leave beyond 14 days in discrete 30-day periods. Under these provisions, the agencies will be required to report to Congress after the use of the first 30-day extension, detailing why the extension is necessary, the stage of any investigation against the employee, the reasons the employee cannot return to the workplace, as well as other pertinent information. Again, I want to thank Mr. Lynch for his work on this legislation. I believe that this is a stronger bill and more fair to the employees. I think it was an important step forward. I thank Mr. Cummings, the committee as a whole, and the many members who were involved in getting the bill to this point today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2908) to adopt the bison as the national mammal of the United States, as amended.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to have the primary sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), speak first. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In conclusion, let me just say one of the most majestic animals on the face of the planet is the American bison. You go to see it and you just sit in awe and you think of the rich history and the role that it has played in our Nation. It serves as a symbol on two of our State flags, and it is the seal of the Department of the Interior. I just want to say that I hope all Americans--especially the youth-- get a chance to see one of the bison out in the wild. It was close to extinction, but it was brought back. There are hundreds of thousands of them now. Whether you go to South Dakota or up to Yellowstone, Montana, there are places where you can really see these bison out. It really is an amazing sight. I think it is appropriate that we move this bill today. I want to thank Mr. Clay of Missouri and, in particular, Mrs. Noem of South Dakota for her recognizing the importance of this issue. I also want to thank Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming. She offered an important amendment that made an adjustment to the bill. I think this is a smart thing for the Congress to do, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.