PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 28, 2025
Educational Choice for Children Act of 2025
This bill establishes a nonrefundable tax credit for contributions (cash or stock) made by an individual to a tax-exempt organization that provides scholarships for qualified elementary and secondary school expenses to eligible students (scholarship granting organization), subject to limitations.
Under the bill, the tax credit is limited to the greater of $5,000 or 10% of adjusted gross income.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Further, the bill establishes a $5 billion annual volume cap (for 2025-2028) for the tax credit (which may be increased under certain circumstances). The volume cap is allocated by the Department of the Treasury for the tax credit on a first-come, first-serve basis (based on the contribution date). However, under the bill, 10% of the volume cap must be divided evenly among states for allocation to individuals residing in those states.
The bill allows any portion of the tax credit that exceeds the individual’s tax liability (less certain other tax credits) to be carried forward for up to five tax years.
The bill also
establishes specific requirements for a scholarship granting organization,
requires a scholarship granting organization to distribute all contributions within a specific timeframe (exceptions apply), and
excludes from gross income scholarships received by an individual from a scholarship granting organization.
Finally, the bill prohibits federal, state, and local government entities, officers, and employees from imposing requirements that prevent the use of scholarship funds for private or religious elementary or secondary education expenses or discouraging the use of scholarship funds at such education institutions.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.817 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.817 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.817 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.817 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.