SOAR Act Improvements Act
Sponsored By: Representative Foxx
In Committee
Summary
broaden eligibility for Washington-area families while extending and reshaping the District of Columbia scholarship program's funding, accreditation, testing, and reporting rules to increase access and oversight.
Show full summary
- Families and students: Would allow students living anywhere in the Washington metropolitan region to qualify, adding Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland and Arlington and Fairfax counties plus Alexandria and Falls Church in Virginia. It also replaces "kindergarten" with "pre-kindergarten" for scholarship uses to cover younger children.
- Schools and scholarship entities: Would make grants 5-year awards with the option to renew for up to another 5 years without a new competition if the Secretary agrees. It requires participating schools to hold national or regional accreditation and gives schools joining after enactment up to 5 years to obtain full accreditation.
- Program oversight and funding: Would raise tutoring-related student assistance from $2 million to $2.2 million and let grant recipients set lower maximum scholarship amounts if desired. It directs the Institute of Education Sciences to run evaluations and publish a public report by January 1, 2027 and every 7 years after, updates what evaluations must cover including academic progress, graduation and college outcomes, and expands reporting to include school violence, suspensions, and expulsions. It also extends the program's authorization of appropriations through fiscal year 2032 and changes how yearly funds are split beginning in fiscal year 2024.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
5 provisions identified: 3 benefits, 0 costs, 2 mixed.
Regular reviews and school safety reports
If enacted, the Secretary would hire the Institute of Education Sciences to evaluate the scholarship program, with a public report due by January 1, 2027 and then every 7 years. IES could give a nationally norm‑referenced test to grades 3–8 for the study and compare results to similar students. Reviews would also track parent and student satisfaction, high school and college outcomes when possible, and school safety. Schools would report incidents of violence, suspensions, and expulsions for school years that start after enactment. The new evaluation rules would apply to evaluations after a 2‑year period that begins when the bill is enacted.
Scholarship program funding through 2032
If enacted, the program’s authorization would run through fiscal year 2032. The law would change how money is split: one share would become one‑half and another would become one‑sixth. These changes would start in fiscal year 2024.
Steadier management and broader program boards
If enacted, grant terms would stay 5 years, and the Secretary could renew a grant for up to 5 more years without a new competition to keep the program stable. Boards could include members from the Washington metro region: D.C.; Montgomery and Prince George’s (MD); Arlington and Fairfax (VA); and the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church (VA). It would also remove a completed‑report requirement tied to accreditation. These changes would take effect upon enactment.
More tutoring and pre-K, lower caps
If enacted, scholarship funds could be used for pre‑kindergarten. The program could also pay for tutoring, and the student assistance pool would rise from $2.0 million to $2.2 million. If money is short, priority would go to students who attended the District’s lowest‑performing schools. But the grant manager could set a lower maximum scholarship in any year. These changes would take effect upon enactment.
Tighter school accreditation and admissions rules
If enacted, schools in the program would need recognition from a national or regional accreditor, or the English‑language program accreditor named by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. New schools would have up to 5 years after starting the process to get full accreditation. Any admissions steps could not interfere with a school’s regular admission rules. These changes would take effect upon enactment.
Sponsors & CoSponsors
Sponsor
Foxx
NC • R
Cosponsors
Higgins (LA)
LA • R
Sponsored 9/9/2025
Roll Call Votes
No roll call votes available for this bill.
View on Congress.govRelated Bills
HR3151 — SHIPS for America Act of 2025
Rebuild U.S. commercial shipbuilding and a U.S.-flag strategic fleet by pairing new tax credits, grants, and operating payments with stronger cargo-preference rules and workforce and innovation programs to restore domestic capacity and sealift readiness. It centralizes maritime strategy in a White House advisor and a Maritime Security Board and funds a broad set of industrial, port, and training programs to favor U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed vessels.
HR21 — Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
Mandates care and penalties for infants born alive after an abortion. This bill would set standards of care, require reporting, create criminal penalties, and allow civil suits when an infant is born alive following an abortion. - Women and families: A woman on whom an abortion is performed may sue anyone who violates the law and recover objectively verifiable medical and psychological damages, punitive damages, and statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the abortion. Courts must award reasonable attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs and may award fees to defendants if a suit is frivolous. - Health care practitioners and facility employees: Any practitioner present at a birth resulting from an abortion must exercise the same professional skill, care, and diligence as for any other live-born infant of the same gestational age. Practitioners or employees who know of a failure to comply must immediately report the violation to appropriate State or Federal law enforcement. - Criminal and statutory consequences: Violators face fines, up to 5 years in prison, or both, and anyone who intentionally kills a born-alive infant is punished under the murder statute. The bill also updates chapter headings and adds statutory definitions for "abortion" and "attempt."
HR987 — Fair Access to Banking Act
Prevents banks and payment networks from cutting off customers for political or reputational reasons. It sets a national standard that forces objective, risk-based decisions and creates a private right of action for people and businesses harmed by unfair denials. - Families and households keep access to bank accounts and payment services without being excluded for politics or reputation, and any denial must include a written, quantifiable justification. - Lawful businesses and nonprofits, including politically unpopular ones, gain protection from category-based refusals and can sue for treble damages and attorney’s fees if a covered institution violates the rules. - Banks, credit unions, and payment networks must adopt impartial, data-driven risk standards, may face civil penalties, and large institutions that refuse service could lose access to discount window lending or automated clearing house services.
HR7 — No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2025
Bans taxpayer funding for abortions and for health plans that include abortion coverage. The bill lets people buy separate abortion-only coverage paid entirely with non-federal funds, while preventing ACA premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions from applying to plans that include abortion. - Families and ACA enrollees: If an Exchange plan covers abortion you cannot use premium tax credits or cost-sharing reductions for that plan. You may buy a separate abortion-only plan but it is not eligible for those federal subsidies. - Small employers: Small-employer health insurance tax credits exclude plans that include abortion coverage. Employers can offer separate abortion plans only if those plans are funded without federal money. - Insurers and multi-State plans: No multi-State qualified health plan sold in an Exchange may provide abortion benefits paid with federal funds. Insurers must clearly disclose abortion coverage and any surcharge tied to abortion services in enrollment materials. - States and providers: States and non-federal providers may offer abortion coverage funded entirely with non-federal funds. The bill preserves exceptions for rape, incest, and life-threatening pregnancies and explicitly applies rules to the District of Columbia.
HR650 — Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act
A federal fundamental right for parents to direct their children's upbringing, education, and health care. This bill would require the government to justify any substantial burden on that right by showing a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means. - Parents and families: Would recognize parental decisionmaking as a fundamental right, so federal actions that substantially burden parenting must meet the highest level of judicial review. - Education and health decisions: Would explicitly protect the right to direct a child's education and moral or religious upbringing and to access medical records and consent to physical and mental health care. The act excludes actions that would cause serious physical injury or death. - Enforcement and federal agencies: Would apply to all federal laws and their implementation, push courts and agencies to interpret laws in favor of parental authority, and let successful litigants recover attorney's fees under federal fee-shifting rules including 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) and certain administrative adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(C).
HR404 — Hearing Protection Act
This bill would reclassify firearm silencers under federal law by removing them from the National Firearms Act's definition of “firearm” and creating a parallel federal licensing and tax framework. It would also preempt state and local silencer taxes and require destruction of prior federal silencer records. - Owners and buyers: People acquiring or possessing silencers would be subject to a federal licensing and registration regime under Chapter 44 of Title 18, even as silencers are taken out of the NFA firearm definition. - State and local governments: Would be barred from imposing taxes, special registration, marking, or recordkeeping on silencers beyond ordinary sales or use taxes. - Records and industry rules: Would require destruction of existing silencer entries in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record within 365 days, mandate serial-number marking on silencers, and add a 10 percent federal excise tax on silencers sold by manufacturers or importers.
Take It Personal
Get Your Personalized Policy View
Create a free account to save research, track policy impacts, and unlock your personalized versions of these pages.
Already have an account? Sign in