Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2218) to amend the charter school program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1892) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we will be discussing two good bills. Both bills under this rule are bipartisan bills. One will support students across this Nation, give parents better choices, improve the quality of our charter schools in our country; and so, too, we will improve and enhance the intelligence gathering of our Nation that keeps us safe under the authorization bill.

The Quality Charter Schools Act will improve our global economic standing by improving student access to quality and effective public charter schools.

I find, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is necessary to help educate some of our colleagues on the definition of what charter schools are. Charter schools are established by school districts or other authorizers. They are public schools and have to accept all students equally. The concept of these schools is that they have site-based management. So, again, they are public schools with site-based management. That, in brief, is the definition of a charter school.

Now, that is not better or worse than a district running a school. It can be better; it can be worse. And as we look across the country, we see examples of good charter schools and bad charter schools. Just because something is a charter school certainly doesn't mean it is good.

What we've tried to do with this bill is improve the quality of the authorizing practices of the States and the districts as they go into: A, initially evaluating charter schools and making sure they serve at- risk students and show demonstrated success in closing the achievement gap; and, B, making sure that they follow through on what their charter contains.

A charter is a synonym for a contract. Effectively, these schools operate through contracts with public authorities, namely authorizers, States, State charter institutes, regions, and school districts, and they are able to operate under those contracts and fulfill their role as public schools.

What are charter schools not? And I sometimes hear from my colleagues, is this corporate control of our schools? Is this some for- profit thing? No, it is actually irrelevant to that discussion, the discussion of charter schools.

Sometimes for-profit companies are brought in as vendors to run schools. Now, this can happen with school districts just as surely as it can happen with charter schools. Some of the larger instances of this have been school

districts because, of course, charter schools are much more mom and pop. But that is a separate discussion about what vendors can and cannot be brought in to actually run public schools.

In the State of Colorado, as an example, we don't allow any for- profit institutions to hold a charter. Now, certainly we don't restrict charters to school districts, and they bring in a variety of vendors. I think every school district in the country uses private, for-profit textbook vendors as an example. But we would be against managing out of D.C. what vendors they bring in. In fact, charter schools and school districts have great discretion about what vendors they use.

But what this bill does is it effectively ups the ante on the accountability, the oversight, and also assisting with the growth of quality charter schools. Many charter schools across the country focus on particular areas of learning or emphasize particular aspects of curriculum. We have excellent art charter schools, college prep charter schools, Montessori charter schools, core knowledge, English language acquisition, outdoor learning, and education charter schools.

They can function more independently than a large district because they do have site-based management that allows for operational flexibility. They can have different school calendars, different school days, and different curriculums. This freedom allows the charters to function autonomously in areas that can benefit children's success in school.

And again, with experimentation, not everything you try is going to work. And, of course, for every example of a charter school that successfully serves at-risk kids, there are also counterexamples of charter schools that are doing as poorly, or more so, than some of the failing neighborhood schools that the children were in before.

I have direct experience founding and running several charter schools in Colorado that filled particular education niches. I founded and served as superintendent of New America School. When I saw that many school districts in my State were dropping funding for older students that were still learning English and there weren't the types of programs to keep new immigrants in high school through a diploma, I approached several school districts about approving a charter school for this population, for 16- to 21-year-old English language learners. We were granted several charters. New America School now operates in Colorado and New Mexico and has served thousands of English language learners, helping them achieve a high school diploma through meeting their real-life needs.

Again, we really worked backwards from where the customers were. Why weren't these students in school in the first place? Many of them had real-life obstacles. They had day jobs; so they needed a night school. Forty percent of the young women had children; so they needed either on-site daycare or some sort of daycare voucher that we were able to help them supply.

And just as importantly, we made sure that every member of the staff, the teachers at the school, every single one of them, is passionate about helping new immigrants learn English; and that is what brought them to our school and actually improved the faculty morale because they were able to practice their passion rather than it being an afterthought as it was in some of the other conventional schools.

I also founded the Academy of Urban Learning, which is focused on educating homeless students in Denver.

Right here in Washington, D.C., we have seen the success of several excellent charter schools that have outperformed other public schools, including the KIPP schools.

So we have seen across this country, as a result of the charter school movement, great experimentation, some successes and some failures. It's time, 10 years on, to learn from our experiences with charter schools and replace the Federal authorizing act with one that can really up the ante, take the learning that has occurred over the last decade into account and improve both the quality of charter schools generally and the quantity of good charter schools across our country.

This bill would update the existing Federal initiatives. We provide critical investment in quality alternatives. The bill carves out 15 percent of the funding for facilities, capital, and credit enhancements, and the remaining 80 percent would go to start new charter schools. The bill would require States to provide 90 percent of their grants to charter school authorizers and operators. It also incorporates much of the language from a bill that Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota and I introduced last session and this session, the All-STAR Act, which would add for the first time Federal law State-level funding for expansion of successful charter schools.

So, again, when we have examples of what works in public education, why not do more of it? Yes, we want to turn around failing schools. Yes, we need to improve upon what doesn't work. And yes, we need to hold charter schools that are not working fully accountable under the law. But when we have an example of something that works, we should support serving more kids. As a simple example, in my State and district, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy in Westminster is a K-8 charter school that opened just 4 years ago. I'm glad, by the way, that one of the amendments made in order under this rule is an amendment from Mr. Paulsen and I that would specify that schools that have 3 years of demonstrated success are eligible for expansion grants, because this school has only been around for 4 years. It has an extended year, extended day program. It provides after-school tutoring, full-day kindergarten. Every student studies chess and tennis. The student population maps the kind of a traditional at-risk population, with 95 percent Latino, 86 percent English language learners, 93 percent free and reduced lunch. This means these are poor and working families. Yet, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy has scored far above the State average, including our wealthy suburban districts like some of the other areas that I represent, in the past 3 years. They scored 95 to 100 percent proficient in math, between 77 and 97 percent proficient in reading and writing, and for third- and fifth-graders they've averaged 20 percent higher than the State averages. Other successful charter schools in Colorado, like the Denver School of Science and Technology, have also achieved positive outcomes with low- income students.

I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to talk about many of the amendments made in order under this bill. We did in the Rules Committee propose an open rule for these bills, and it would have been nice to have a more thorough discussion, which is why I'll be opposing this rule. But I am glad I did make in order several amendments, including one of mine.

Mr. Speaker, this rule also brings another very important bill to the floor, the Fiscal Year 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act. This bill continues the recent bipartisan tradition of passing authorization bills in order to reform and conduct oversight of our intelligence community. Every Member of this body believes strongly in keeping our country safe. When we're discussing the threats to our Nation and the war on terror, the front line of that war is our intelligence-gathering apparatus and our intelligence community. In this time of budget constraint we know we need to spend our money wisely. I've often argued that instead of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars invading countries preemptively, we should use our force selectively, including targeted collection of intelligence about where threats arise.

This bill makes a balanced compromise between budget realities and our national security need. This authorization did find savings in various aspects of the intelligence community. It proposes to curb post-personnel growth while protecting our capabilities. While it invests in select high-priority needs, it also achieves savings by handling contractors similar to the way the President handles pay for civilian employees.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that this body was able to come together with both of the committees of jurisdiction, Intelligence and Education and Workforce, around strong bipartisan compromise under these two bills. And while I wish we had the opportunity to further discuss additional recommendations for amendments on the floor, I am appreciative that in fact there will be a robust discussion with regard to the charter school bill under this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague of mine on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California laid down an excellent framework for the potential of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to accomplish their mandate; namely, bringing down tax rates by eliminating loopholes in a way that effectively eliminates expenditures in the Tax Code. For whether something is a subsidy or a tax credit, it is very much an expenditure.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make Mr. Garamendi of California's amendment in order.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act is not perfect. There are some provisions that have already received a veto threat from the President that need to be amended. Thankfully, the chairman and the ranking member have worked together to submit a manager's amendment that would do just that.

It is vital that this manager's amendment pass because of two provisions in particular.

The first would make the Director of the National Security Agency a Senate-confirmed position. This would unnecessarily politicize one of our most critical intelligence needs. Traditionally, this position has already been indirectly subject to confirmation through the Senate's confirmation of military officers who have been promoted into the position. We can't afford to damage the management of the intelligence community in this manner.

The second provision would modify the reporting requirements regarding Guantanamo detainees. This would require the Director of National Intelligence to provide State Department cables to the Intelligence Committees. While effective oversight is an essential role of Congress, we also must not interfere with the ability of the State Department to conduct effective diplomatic negotiations. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to support the manager's amendment as well as the amended version of the underlying bill.

I also want to thank, with regard to the Charter School bill, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for their excellent work both on the bill as well as their manager's amendment that would improve the bill in a wide variety of ways, including prioritizing States that authorize charters to be their own School Food Authority so that they can serve healthy meals to their students, including transportation considerations to help ensure that kids have access, and that choice is made more meaningful by ensuring that families who don't have the ability to carpool or transport their kids to school also have choices within the public education system.

This truly bipartisan bill and manager's amendment really exemplifies what the House can do to support good public education and improve student outcome.

I agree with my colleague, Mr. Hoyer, who said that this is a start. While many of us would rather see a full reauthorization of ESEA, this is a very promising start to what will hopefully be a very productive session with regard to education, one of the most important goals of this Congress as well as absolutely necessary to improve the economy in the long run.

Unfortunately, one of the amendments disallowed by the Republican majority under this rule is one that I proposed to help facilitate charter schools in obtaining Federal competitive grant funding by adding priority for States that allow charter schools to be LEAs, or Local Education Agencies. Effectively, my amendment would have reduced paperwork and overhead. If the school districts and charter schools agree, the charter schools themselves could effectively function as their own fiscal agent for Federal purposes and to compete for Federal grants.

What happens now, and it works in most cases 9 out of 10 times-- unfortunately it's the cases where it doesn't work out that cause the difficulty--is charter schools have to go through their LEA, their authorizing institute, or their school district in order to apply for Federal grants.

What does this mean? It means there's another set of bureaucrat's eyes that have to see every proposal, another person that has to sign off. Sometimes this can lead to unnecessary delays. At worst, it can lead to missing deadlines if funding applications are submitted to districts and not turned around in enough time to meet Federal deadlines for grant funding.

So it would be nice to continue to work on this with the committee, and I think that many of us would like to see charter schools recognized as LEAs for purposes of Federal funding.

I am proud to say that, in my home State of Colorado, we were able to get this fixed in the last legislative session, and now charter schools are recognized as LEAs. In fact, about half of the States allow charter schools to be LEAs for Federal purposes.

A key goal of the bill is to ensure charter schools have equitable funding as well. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California, one which would give priority to eligible entities working with charter schools that plan to use materials made in America for the construction or renovation of school facilities. Once again, it would make that amendment in order and allow for a discussion and vote by the House on that amendment. Republicans blocked this germane amendment last night in the Rules Committee by a party- line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can help American workers and allow this House to deliberate on an amendment that deserves debate in this body.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule as well, having left off several amendments that would otherwise improve these bipartisan bills.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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 H.R. 1892.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I first wish to announce that, subsequent to ordering the bill reported, the committee has modified the classified schedule of authorizations to the bill with respect to the level of funding of certain programs, with bipartisan agreement between myself and my ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger.

The classified annex containing the schedule of authorizations is available for review by all Members of the House, subject to the rules of the House and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, under the procedures described in my announcement to the House on Wednesday. The modified schedule of authorizations is and has been available for review to Members for the period of time required by the rules of the House.

Madam Chair, I think this is an important day for the community, certainly rolling into the weekend of the 10th anniversary of that tragic event on 9/11. It is important, it is crucial, that we continue to monitor, to improve, to provide support for our intelligence services who so bravely around the world and here at home serve to protect the United States of America.

The bill before us today is a vital tool for our oversight of the intelligence community's classified activities and is critical to ensuring our intelligence agencies have the resources and authorities they need to do their important work. Passing an annual intelligence bill is vital to keeping the laws governing our intelligence operations up to date. The FY12 bill sustains today's intelligence operations and provides for future capabilities while achieving significant savings.

The U.S. intelligence community plays a critical role in the war on terrorism and securing the country from many other threats that we face. This bill funds all U.S. intelligence agencies, spanning 17 separate agencies, totaling roughly $80 billion. The bill's comprehensive classified annex provides detailed guidance on intelligence spending, including adjustments to costly programs. It provides oversight and authorization for critical intelligence activities, including but not limited to the global counterterrorism operations such as the one that took out Osama bin Laden; tactical intelligence support to combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places; cyber defense by the National Security Agency; detecting and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the R&D, research and development, of new technology to maintain our intelligence agencies' technological edge, including work on code breaking and spy satellites.

The bill also reflects our tough economic times as well, Madam Chair. After passage of the Budget Control Act, the committee revamped the bill it reported out of committee in May to double its budget savings. The bill is significantly below the President's FY12 budget request and further still below the FY11 authorized and appropriated levels. We accomplished this without impacting the mission. The savings were achieved through a whole series of joint work and effort by many to merge services and find savings that would bring efficiencies, as I said, again, Madam Chair, without impacting the mission of the intelligence services.

The bill curbs unnecessary personnel growth. The cost of additional personnel would squeeze funding for high-tech investments, which is our competitive advantage in intelligence. While the bill denies most of the administration's requested personnel increases, it adds some key positions in high priority areas such as cyber defense. The bill also promotes major operating efficiencies in a number of areas, including data processing, IT, and office leases, finding over $100 million in savings.

This bill also makes only ``best value'' investments and shaves $1 billion from a handful of very large-ticket hardware items and programs that the intelligence community is involved in. The bill protects investments in cutting-edge R&D and redirects $500 million of savings to invest in some game-changing technologies.

The bottom line is this bipartisan bill preserves and advances national security, and it is also fiscally responsible. Secrecy is a necessary part of our country's intelligence work, so the intelligence committees must conduct strong and effective oversight on behalf of the American people. That oversight is impossible, however, without an annual Intelligence authorization bill. Madam Chair, that's why we stand before you today with a bill that I think this body can be proud of, America can be proud of, and our intelligence community can take to the bank that we're investing in their mission success.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, September 2, 2011.

Hon. Mike Rogers,

Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,

House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers: I write to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding provisions in the Intelligence

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 within the

jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee, specifically

the preparation of Nuclear Proliferation Assessment

Statements and a requirement that the Department of State

provide information concerning individuals detained at Naval

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We appreciate your agreeing to

include the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate

Foreign Relations Committee in the list of committees to

which this information will be submitted.

In order to expedite Floor consideration of this

legislation, the Committee will not object to the inclusion

of these two provisions and will not mark up the bill. The

Committee takes this action with the mutual understanding

that the Committee's jurisdiction over this, and similar

legislation, is in no way diminished or altered.

The Committee reserves the right to seek appointment to any

House-Senate conference on this legislation, and requests

your support if such a request is made. I would appreciate

your including this letter in the Congressional Record during

consideration of the legislation on the House Floor.

Sincerely,

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Chairman.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Ohio. I think on this, unfortunately, his facts were just not correct. It's interesting in the business of intelligence because so much of it is classified that the rhetoric is easy to throw around and the condemnation is easy to heap on the very brave men and women who are following the law that we give them overseas. And I think that's one of the reasons that this administration came to power and said, all of the kinds of things and all the rhetoric around the political campaign just wasn't true. They found that they were following the law. They were comporting with the missions and guidelines and objectives in accordance with the law of the United States. So they are, in fact following the law.

There was no, absolutely no role for the CIA to overthrow the Qadhafi regime. That is just false. So I think we need to be careful about making these assertions that are pretty damning, if you will, that are completely inaccurate. We may believe that happened. I can tell you, on the Intelligence Committee, and my friend, Dutch Ruppersberger, we watch this closely.

One of the reasons I hope he will change his mind on the bill, Madam Chair, is that we need the ability to have oversight of these 17 agencies. This bill allows us to do it. By having no bill for 6 years, no authorization bill of any meaning was passed in this House. That's when problems start.

This gets us back to regular order. It gets us back into the business of conducting proper oversight and setting the guidelines in the classified annex, which I would urge the gentleman to come down and review in the House Intelligence Committee, which every Member has the privilege and, I argue, responsibility to do that if that's what they desire to do. It lays out very clear guidelines on spending and objectives and policies.

So I would argue that the gentleman's position is misstated. I understand his frustration. But, again, this gets us back to regular order, and I praise the administration for continuing the programs that we know were put in place under the last administration that are keeping Americans safer today.

With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I too have concerns about weapons systems in Libya. But one of the problems was you can't be against the intelligence services being places to collect information, and then wonder why they're not in a place to get the information that we might need. And that's part of the problem here.

There was no CIA involvement in the regime change, none. That did not happen. I don't know where that got started. That is inaccurate information, and I would be careful about throwing out that the agency was involved in some regime changes. They were not.

We have pressed the agency and the administration to be more aggressive on accounting for and rendering safe weapons systems that are scattered all around Libya. We saw this in Iraq. When the regime uses these weapons caches, not to protect the citizens of its own state but to protect its regime, it becomes much more difficult to get a handle on it. We ought to be celebrating the agency's work in trying to determine where these systems are and how we render them safe and account for them, and one way we can do that is passing this bill that gives them the resources to do exactly that.

I would hope the gentleman would have a change of heart.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I respect the gentleman from Ohio's position as well and hope that we can work out those differences as we move forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, who is not only a colleague but a friend, in working so diligently over the course of the summer and really at the beginning of this year to reestablish the Intelligence Committee as a force for oversight over the 17 agencies. It is a tremendous amount of money, and it is a tremendous amount of responsibility because most of what we do happens behind closed doors and is classified.

I think working together we have come to one of the best products certainly I have seen since on the committee of the most thorough review from line by line by line of both the National Intelligence Program spending as well as the Military Intelligence Program spending, and we've had very good cooperation because we've cooperated together from the agencies themselves.

There really was a unity of effort here that I think Americans can and should be proud of in an effort to make sure that our men and women who are risking their lives today to protect the United States of America have the resources they need and the commitment on behalf of this Congress and the American people to be successful in their particular mission.

I want to thank the staffs on both committees. For the first time we had joint briefings with both Republican and Democrat staff on the very difficult budget issues that worked sometimes through the process of the Intelligence authorization bill. They briefed

at the same table at the same time, which sounds a little--something that should happen more often but it did not and we have reestablished that. We have reestablished the quarterly reviews on all of the programs so that we have regular and consistent oversight on what happens in the intelligence community. That all wouldn't really have happened without the leadership of Mr. Ruppersberger and his team and my team as well.

There are too many to name who spent countless hours on this particular bill, the leadership team here and all the folks on the Intelligence staff. Honorable mention to Brian Smith, our budget director, who gave a lot of his heart and soul to go through every line and find every penny for us. I know on Mr. Ruppersberger's staff they have sat beside him the entire time to make that happen.

Without further ado, Madam Chair, we'll get to the amendments; but, again, I do think this is a product that reflects the best of what Congress can do when we work together, and the best of the most amazing people in our intelligence community and what they have to offer in the protection of the United States of America.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the manager's amendment to include a clarification at the request of the ranking member. The modification is at the desk.

Madam Chair, this is the manager's amendment to the bill. These are the last few details that we were able to work out in a bipartisan way to bring the bill to the floor.

The manager's amendment is primarily intended to remove three provisions that have been the subject of a veto threat by the administration. In addition, it makes a number of largely technical clarifications and adds a provision on authority to fill vacancies, a provision that was inadvertently omitted from the Rules Committee's print of the bill.

Madam Chair, as I explained during the general debate, moving this bill forward is critical to ensure comprehensive legislative oversight of our intelligence activities and, just as importantly, intelligence budgeting and spending. While I regret that our efforts to reach accommodation on these provisions, which were originally included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill, it is important that we remove these contentious provisions now so that the detailed spending and oversight recommendations in the classified annex can go forward.

The first contentious provision would have required Senate confirmation of the National Security Administration's Director. The other two contentious provisions subject to veto would have required the production of certain State Department cables related to detainee negotiations. While I support the production of these materials, the committees seeking them have other tools at their disposal to obtain them, and the bill should not be held up over that document dispute.

In addition, the manager's amendment includes a clarification to clarify section 310 on mitigating risks in the supply chain to ensure that those authorities cannot be delegated below the level of a service acquisition executive. The change is important to ensure the appropriate level of management is involved in such important decisions. This change reflects the committee's understanding that these acquisition authorities will not be used lightly and that all decisions under this provision will be carried out by responsible senior officials within the intelligence community and coordinated and overseen by the Director of National Intelligence.

Finally, the manager's amendment contains a modification requested by the ranking member to a provision concerning narcotics trafficking on public lands. The modification is needed to clarify the intended scope of the provision to ensure it is not read too broadly.

With that, Madam Chair, I ask Members to support the manager's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for working with us. It is an important issue, and you have our commitment from myself and, I believe, the ranking member to coordinate this particular report.

I appreciate the gentleman's consideration, because it will allow the community to prioritize it. It may take 3 weeks or longer, or 3 weeks shorter than an amendment might call for, but it allows them to adjust according to the demands at the particular time on the intelligence community. For that, I want to thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with him on the issue.

I thank the gentleman from California.

This is an important amendment. These are issues we have been working on in committee; and I can tell you, we have been a tad bit frustrated at that lack of coordination. I think it is unfortunate it took this amendment as a part of the Intelligence bill to continue to put pressure on the administration to get their act together on this particular issue. It is an issue we absolutely must solve, not only for the safety and security of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces in Afghanistan, but also for the greater impact on the war on terror. I strongly urge support of the Hunter amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Minnesota.

There is a lot of good in public education today. When we look across our country, just as we see examples of what doesn't work--drop-out factory schools where kids are falling further and further behind each year, schools that are unsafe learning environments for their kids-- just as we have that, we also have examples of what works, what works with our most at-risk populations in this country showing that every student in this country can learn and can achieve, given the right opportunity and the right school environment.

Now, charter schools aren't the silver bullet or the solution, but they are a tool in the arsenal of school districts in the States to address the learning needs of all students.

Nationally, there's over 5,000 charter schools representing just over 5 percent of all public schools in the country. Many of those charter schools couldn't have gotten off the ground without the Federal start- up grant that this bill reauthorizes. Importantly, again because we have examples that this works, this bill, for the first times, allows States to use the money to expand and replicate learning models that work.

I point to one in Colorado, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy. Ninety- three percent free and reduced lunch, 86 percent English language learners, and yet they scored far above the State average in the past 3 years, 95 to 100 percent proficient in math and about 20 percent higher than the State average score--the State average score that includes wealthy suburban districts as well.

Yes, these students can learn, and schools like Ricardo Flores Magon Academy will now under this new authorization have access to expansion and replication money.

So, when models work--whether that's a model like KIPP nationally, which has successfully served some of our most at-risk communities, or whether it's grassroots efforts across our country--they will be able to access resources to serve more students and grow or to open up additional branches of the same school. National, State, and local research consistently shows that, yes, not all charter schools work. Some underperform other public schools. Some perform at the same level, and some do better.

What we do with this bill is we provide for best practices nationally. We've learned a lot in the last 10 years with regard to charter schools. We now have some best practices in this bill, like removing caps on the number of charter schools in districts. Through the manager's amendment, we ensure that charter schools can participate in food services as well as in transportation services in districts. I want to point out the importance of the transportation because, to make choice meaningful, to add the emphasis to choice, you have to have transportation options to get the most at-risk kids to school; otherwise choice is simply an empty promise.

By focusing Federal investments, as H.R. 2218 does, it ensures that we maximize the impact of our limited Federal resources on improving student achievement and reducing the learning gap across the country. To succeed as a Nation, we need to do a better job with our human capital in preparing the next generation of Americans for the next generation of jobs, and this bill will be an important tool in that arsenal.

I strongly support this bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, again, this process really demonstrates strong bipartisan leadership and a commitment to our

Nation's children from both Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller, as well as all the members of the committee and their staff. And I express not only my deep appreciation but, I am sure, the deep appreciation of the many millions of children that this bill will help provide additional opportunities for to them both.

This manager's amendment makes a good bill even better, including allowing priority for States that allow charters to have autonomous school food services. It's critical charter schools are allowed to have independent food services. Many lack cafeteria space in some facilities, and this amendment will prioritize States that allow for that. We all know how important nutrition is for success. Transportation to and from charter schools is also critical.

The bill also allows for the expansion, for the very first time, a replication of successful charter school models, again deferring to States in that regard. Previously, these monies were only eligible for the establishment of innovative new charter schools, a worthy goal and one that is preserved under this bill as well. But we are now 10 years later down the road. We know a little bit about what works and what doesn't work.

Based on that, the bill in the manager's amendment, A, upped the ante on the best practices for the States in terms of being good authorizers, and, B, allowed some of the funds to be used to expand and replicate proven success, as well as preserving some for the continued innovation, which is also necessary to drive our education system forward.

This manager's amendment also supports dropout prevention and recovery and rural needs. Figuring out how charter schools can fit in the context of rural and smaller school districts has also been an important learning curve over the last 10 years. This bill and the manager's amendment incorporate some of the very best thinking in that regard in terms of making sure that States have plans to ensure that charter schools can also benefit rural areas.

This bipartisan amendment exemplifies the great work of the committee leadership overall in the bill and truly does improve upon the base bill. I am very proud to be strongly supportive of the manager's amendment as well as the underlying bill.

I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring forward this bipartisan bill. Let me express why it is important. To delay the expansion of a successful charter school for 5 years and prevent States from having the flexibility to deploy these resources after 3 proven years only consigns more kids to failure and lack of opportunity. It is an important amendment because it provides flexibility for States and charter schools to expand what works. And 1 year could be an aberration, 2 years of proven success can be lucky, but 3 years of success is hard to dispute.

When a school has 3 years of proven success, to make it wait 5 full years before it's eligible to expand with Federal money only consigns all of those students who would have been served to otherwise reside on the waiting list and are forced to attend schools that provide less educational opportunity. We are only young once in life, and that's why with regard to education and improving the quality of our public schools, we all feel the fierce urgency of now.

When a charter school starts out, it is not possible to predict whether it will be successful or not, and that's the purpose of the innovation grants. Without this amendment, charter schools that have proven success could be forced to wait 5 years before being able to replicate and expand, a wait that our Nation can't afford and, most of all, those kids on the waiting list can't afford.

This revision is especially needed for charter schools that don't use the grants for planning, which is another year before the charter school starts, so it could be 1 year or 3 or 4 years. But if they don't use the year for a planning year, it is actually a full 5-year wait before the school would have access to expansion and replication resources without this amendment. So I am particularly glad of Mr. Paulsen's effort to bring this forward.

The national activity section of the bill already reflects this. In fact, the national activity section provides funding after 3 years of demonstrated success, but that's only 2.5 percent of the total funds of the bill. Most of the funds under this bill are pushed to the States and allowed for the dual purpose of innovation and expansion and replication. And essentially what this bill remedies, it reflects the national activities language in saying that the States have the discretion, they are actually allowed to require 5 years of demonstrated success. I wouldn't encourage them to do that, but they have the flexibility to do it with 3 years of demonstrated success to ensure that proven educational opportunities for kids can reach more kids sooner under this amendment which is why I am proud to lend it my support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, again, one of the best practices that I think we have learned over the last 10 years is the importance of having alternative authorizing agencies. In fact, 32 States have created alternative authorizing agencies, including my home State of Colorado which has a charter school institute. In other States it takes the form of vesting mayors, university board of regents, or State boards of education as alternative authorizers.

Doing so ensures that bold ideas for charter schools brought forth by parents and grassroots community members are more likely to get a fair shot at being considered if there is an alternative authorizer, instead of what's already in the bill, which also should be present, which is an appeals process. An appeals process automatically kind of sets up a kind of adversarial relationship. We have that as well in Colorado. When I served on the State Board of Education, we heard appeals processes. So if a district turned down a charter school, it was appealed to the State Board. We could then overrule that district and force them to grant it. But it set up a very adversarial relationship.

What has proven to work better in 32 States that have it is having an alternative authorizer in addition to an appeals process so that districts that simply don't want to be in the charter authorizing business or that refuse to grant any charter schools or don't have an application process for them can simply allow another entity to provide the quality oversight that's needed for a charter school in the district.

One of the great evolutions of the last 10 years has been the responsibility of charter school authorizers. It's not simply a charter school that needs to reform. It's the authorizer, the public entity, that needs to hold that charter school responsible for the performance of its students. In my State of Colorado, our charter school institute approved 22 charter schools serving 10,000 students in the 6 years that we've had it. That's 22 out of about 120 charter schools that exist in the State. The State University of New York and the University of Indiana in Michigan have also approved some of those States' most successful charter schools.

Local school boards look at things in a different way sometimes. They appropriately consider their district's own financial situation when voting on charter schools. But that focus sometimes interferes with their consideration of the greater good and local control. Quiet, quality, viable public school choices for parents and students that address the diverse learning needs of their district. Unreasonable denials by school districts can be appealed in States. And that's already one of the provisions of this. But from my own experience on the State Board of Education, I know that the appeals process is really less desirable for a number of reasons. First of all, it's only reactive and only addresses the merits of whether a particular school board denial was valid or not. It's not proactive in terms of developing innovative learning models and supporting the quality, development, and authorizing practice of charter schools. Two, appeals can address school district delays in approving charter schools. There's also a way of kind of killing by delay--burying under paperwork, unreasonable request after unreasonable request from the school district to the founders of the charter school that ultimately lead to the abandonment of the idea.

Appeals are often limited in scope and criteria. And appeals are also a drain on State resources, State Board of Education members' time, Department of Education staff time, State attorney generals' time. So while they have their role, it really should be a last resort and shouldn't be prioritized as the best practice. That's why I'm proposing to add a priority for multiple charter authorizers. Again, States will be able to determine the best form that that should take.

I should also point out this is very important for rural areas and small districts. It is very, very difficult if not impossible for a small district or rural school district to be a quality authorizer. In many cases, they recognize that, and would rather not be. In fact, in Colorado, most of the districts that have welcomed the State authorizer and said for the local applicants to apply to them instead of their district are districts that know that they can't engage in a meaningful approval or oversight process. By having a Statewide entity you allow some scale to the very important business of being an authorizer--a scale that small and rural districts lack. We can empower community members in those districts with the power of school choice and charters by ensuring that there is a multiple authorizer.

This amendment is supported by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools as well as--and very important, a newer entity at the national level--the National Association for Charter School Authorizers, which is actually composed of districts and State authorizing agencies, both of whom have endorsed this amendment.

Again, it simply establishes this as a priority for funding, ensuring that this best practice that we've come to learn over the last decade can better be reflected and that hopefully States that haven't yet had the chance to look at a way to create an alternative authorizing agency will be able to learn from the States that have under this, and do so, to ensure that charter schools get a fair hearing, prevent the adversarial outcomes that too frequently come from the appeals process, and ensure

that choice is given meaning in rural school districts and small school districts.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I think the gentleman from New Jersey has, as he put it, good language that should not only be included in this bill, but I think in other relevant construction bills as well.

Very simply, it encourages the Secretary to give priority to States that encourage green building practices and certification. Again, that could be as simple as a State making sure that those options are available. Other States have tax credits or other methods of incentivizing green school development.

When we are talking about our national energy policy, we are talking about how frustrated our constituents are with gas prices; we're talking about our national security as a Nation and our energy security. I think that for this Congress to ensure that in every bill, large and small, we encourage--again, without any mandate to school districts, without any requirement, but encourage the Secretary to give priority to States that have at least some system for encouraging green school building development, I think this is a good thing to start right here in a small way, in a bill that certainly won't on its own turn around the energy future of our country, but on its own does have the potential to help drive scale of green technology without compromising educational outcomes.

Again, I think this is an appropriate addition to the bill and will hopefully lead to improvements of energy efficiency in charter schools across the country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I rise today in support of the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Kline, and the subcommittee chair, Mr. Hunter, for all of their cooperation and support in working with the minority on this side of the aisle on this legislation. Both sides of the aisle have strong proponents of this legislation and of the charter school movement in this country.

This legislation, because of that cooperation, is the first bipartisan piece of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It passed the Education Committee with bipartisan support, and I'm hopeful that it will receive similar support from the full Congress.

This country is facing a severe education crisis. Our schools are simply not meeting the educational needs of our students, and it is a threat to our global competitiveness and to our economic security.

Charter schools began 20 years ago as a laboratory for innovation to help tackle the stagnant education system at that time and to give options to parents who felt helpless. These schools have often become the myth busters of what is possible for a demographic of children that have all too often been written off. Currently, they serve about 4 percent of all public school students. In urban areas, that number is much higher. Charter schools are not a silver bullet and will not solve all of the education challenges, but they have become an important part of the education system. We need to update the law to reflect that reality.

The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act encourages effective reforms that will help transform schools and communities.

First, this bill makes significant improvements to the existing Charter School Program and addresses issues that we have heard from education advocates across the country. It rightfully returns charter schools to their original purpose--public schools that identify and share innovative practices that lead to improvements in academic achievement for all public schools. It requires that charters be brought back into the traditional public school system as opposed to running in a parallel system. And it requires charters to actually serve all student populations and therefore provides more parents with real choices.

Second, this bill prioritizes accountability. It puts student achievement first, and it greatly increases the accountability of charter school authorizers and oversight by State education authorities.

Third, this bill addresses a recurring problem in charter schools, which is the lack of service to students with disabilities and English language learners. In this bill, we dramatically improve access for underserved populations. We require better recruitment and enrollment practices for underserved populations.

Lastly, this bill rightly focuses on our students and what they need to succeed. In many States, high-performing charter schools are a great option for some students. These schools are closing achievement gaps and shattering the low expectations that have stood in the way of student success.

Charter schools have been on the forefront of bold ideas and innovation in education. They have shown that, given the right tools, all students can achieve at high levels. We are learning from great charter schools about what works for students and what students need to be able to compete in the global economy. Replicating this success will help our students, our communities, and our economy.

With this legislation, we can help ensure that the positive reforms happening at some charter schools will happen at all charter schools, and we can help ensure that best practices are shared throughout that school district. But this legislation is only one piece of the education reform puzzle. Unfortunately, we are not taking up the whole Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but just one part.

This country is in the midst of the most dynamic education reform atmosphere that I have seen in my tenure in Congress. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act presents an opportunity to take hold of that momentum and bring our education system into the future.

The bill before us today is good, but we need to do much more. It will be a tremendous disservice for our children and our country if we do not provide relief for schools that are struggling under an outdated law. This relief should come in the form of a full, comprehensive reauthorization of ESEA. To do that, we must take on all of the real issues facing all our schools, not just charters. We need to address accountability, data, assessments, and college- and career ready standards and modernizing the teaching profession. We all have to hold true to the reason that the Federal Government has a role in education in the first place: to ensure equal opportunity for every student in this country to access a great education.

We know what it will take to fix our schools. It isn't a mystery. But accomplishing that goal isn't easy. It takes real political will to overcome ideology and to stay focused on what's best for kids.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, and I hope that we can get to a much more comprehensive reauthorization of ESEA in the near future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the intellectual architect of all of this.

They're here in spirit. They're not here in person, unfortunately.

I thank the gentleman. I have one or two other speakers. We've put out a call to them, but they've not responded. I'll see if we can maybe fit them in on the manager's amendment if they want to speak because I'll be very brief on the manager's amendment on this side.

So let me just close by again thanking everyone on the committee for their support. I certainly want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle but particularly the staff on this side of the aisle, and the members of our committee, for helping me with this legislation. I want to recognize Jamie Fasteau, Ruth Friedman, Kara Marchione, Laura Schifter, Daniel Brown, Megan O'Reilly, and Adam Schaefer for all of their contributions to this successful bipartisan effort.

Finally, I would just like to say, as many speakers have said, all charter schools aren't perfect; this isn't a silver bullet. What we hope to be able to do is to really continue to grow the entrepreneurial spirit of young people across the board looking at our education system, thinking how it can be done better, what are the best practices, what are the indicators of successful schools, of successful learning environments, of successful teaching environments for teachers, for students, and focusing on the academic achievement and the benefits to the students. And then to be able to share those models across the charter school spectrum, across the traditional public school spectrum so that all of us can learn and benefit from that, and most importantly so we can create those environments where America's children will have the opportunity to have access to a first-class education that will serve them the rest of their lives.

I believe that that effort is facilitated by the charter school movement. I believe that this legislation is a substantial improvement on the original authorization for charter schools to participate in this area, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.

With that, I've danced as long as I can. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the manager's amendment.

I will be brief here because I want to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, but I want to point out that the manager's amendment again was a lot of hard work by the staff to put together the various ideas from the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, but I think they have done a spectacular job, and the chairman and myself both support this legislation.

I am very supportive of the efforts in the manager's amendment to make sure that parent and community input is a priority in the implementation of the charter school improvement and the operation of those charter schools. We require that, as you consider the beginning of a charter school, you take into consideration, and the State entities take into consideration, the input of parents and the community. I think this is very important.

We know that there are many, many parents that want to be involved in creating charter schools, sustaining a charter school, thinking about what they want to do with the schools in their neighborhood. I think this is an important component that I hope to see in the reauthorization of the ESEA, that more consideration is given to community and to parents about how we turn schools around so that they have some skin in the game, they have some interest in the game, and they have a stake in the outcome of that.

The manager's amendment also requires that each charter school in the State make publicly available information on the educational program, the student support services, teachers, and annual performance enrollment data for all students by the subgroups, and it strengthens the application process that includes application and description of how schools will consider the transportation needs of their students, and also on how the schools and entities will support diverse charter school models, including those serving rural areas.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado to talk about the replication of high-quality charters.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation.

I think one of the intents of this bill and, hopefully, in our reforms of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is to keep our eye on global competition and understand that we must prepare today's students for tomorrow's global economy and the global competition that that suggests.

I strongly support and have had long conversations with the gentlewoman on this amendment and agree to it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, thank him for offering the amendment, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

I know Ms. Moore has reserved her time so she can respond to this, but I just want to say I think we tried to work this out in this legislation in the fashion that if a Governor makes application, he must do this in conjunction with the SEA. And the idea that the Governor would do this on his own, or whatever, we forced that working together simply because, as you point out, most Governors' offices would not have the internal capacity to carry out the responsibilities under the grant. But to deny the Governor the opportunity seems to me doesn't make sense when it's required that the SEA be involved.

I will just say I know why you're offering the amendment, and I am obviously reluctant to oppose it, but I think we have addressed this concern in the legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is very important for all the reasons the gentleman from New Jersey cited.

In terms of the savings, we are seeing more and more schools taking economic liabilities, if you will, such as parking lots and vacant land around the school, turning them into economic assets, and saving the kind of money--it has been recorded now for a number of years the money that is actually saved in these design practices in the schools that free up those resources for other educational purposes.

I want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa.

We should be very clear about this amendment, what it would do and why it would be incredibly detrimental to our students, our schools, and to our country.

In this bill, we require the performance of poor and minority students and students with disabilities to be considered when measuring the success of charter schools. That's as we chose to do when we passed No Child Left Behind, not a perfect education act by any means. But a very important component was the disaggregation of the data so that the parents of each and every one of those children, so the community leaders representing each and every one of those children would know how those children were doing.

We used to have the day when we asked how these students are doing, how this school is doing and all we got were the averages, and everybody said, oh, it's better. The fact of the matter is this is to assure that we understand how those children who have access to these schools, how, in fact, they're individually doing.

These are Title I public schools. They happen to be charter schools. And the point of that is to make sure that poor and minority children, English learners, students with disabilities have the full access to an appropriate education. And to go back to a time when we start to hide those results or we don't hold schools accountable for that is to rip away the fabric of accountability that parents and communities and taxpayers are asking for from those schools.

The idea that you would be held accountable for English learners if you had no English learners in your school is simply hokum. It just isn't what the law says.

This would be an absolute disservice to parents, to the students, and to our communities. It takes us back to the time prior to No Child Left Behind when schools would participate in hiding their failures and champion what they were trying to present to the community as their successes, and that's why we have the charter school movement. That's why we have accountability now that we never had before. That's why this amendment is opposed by so many people who are involved in the promotion of the educational opportunities for these populations: the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the Center for American Progress, the Children's Defense Fund, and many others on the list that I would ask to be put into the Record. The National Counsel of La Raza, the National Disability Rights Network.

List of Groups Against King Amendment

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools; 50CAN;

Center for American Progress; Children's Defense Fund;

Democrats for Education Reform; Education Equality Project;

KIPP; Massachusetts Charter Public School Association;

National Counsel of LaRaza; National Disability Rights

Network; NewSchools Venture Fund; Council for Exceptional

Children; National Center for Learning Disabilities; Easter

Seals Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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 H.R. 2218.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2218, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act is a key component of our efforts to reform the Nation's education system and ensure more students have access to a quality learning experience. I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been strong proponents of charter schools for the breadth of opportunities they offer students and parents.

These innovative institutions empower parents to play a more active role in their child's education and offer students the priceless opportunity to escape underperforming schools. They also open doors for educators to experiment with the fresh teaching methods uniquely geared to meeting the needs of their individual students.

The stories of charter school success are impressive. Students who previously had little hope have been inspired by excellent teachers to reach new heights. The tales of groundbreaking programs and initiatives at local charter schools have motivated surrounding public schools to improve. Parents have witnessed children of all backgrounds transition from struggling to excelling as a result of their charter school education.

Unfortunately, there are not enough charter schools to meet demand and hundreds of thousands of students remain on wait lists each year.

The legislation we consider today takes important steps to encourage and support the establishment of more high-quality charter schools in communities across the United States.

The bipartisan Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act will consolidate funding under the Federal Charter School Program into the existing State grant program. This will allow State educational agencies, State charter school boards, and governors the freedom to award subgrants to support new charter schools as well as replicate or expand high-quality charter schools.

To ensure States are facilitating the growth and expansion of charter schools, this act will give funding priority to those that lift arbitrary caps on the number of charter schools permitted in the State. The legislation

also will provide priority to States that take additional steps to encourage charter school growth, such as allowing more than one State or local agency to authorize charter schools, or promoting charters as a solution to improve struggling public schools.

As we work to increase the presence of charter schools in the United States, we must also protect limited taxpayer funds and make sure every dollar is well spent. It has been said that charter schools are the epitome of performance-based education: In exchange for increased flexibility and autonomy, these schools are held accountable for results. The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act will ensure charter schools continue to be held accountable by supporting an evaluation of schools' impact on students, families, and communities, while also encouraging shared best practices between charter and traditional public schools.

Charter schools are a valuable part of our efforts to improve the education available to our children. This legislation does not represent the whole solution. All of us recognize that additional measures must be enacted to support excellence and innovation in the American education system. However, this act takes an important step in the right direction.

I am very pleased that members of the Education and Workforce Committee have put their differences aside and worked through a very bipartisan process to develop an exceptional piece of legislation. I would like to thank Members and their staffs for these efforts. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us in supporting this positive legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chair of the K-12 Subcommittee.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the committee and the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the chair of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, Mr. Walberg.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

It is my understanding that the gentleman from California has several more speakers.

I am prepared to reserve and let you call on speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to those of Ranking Member Miller's to the staffs on both sides, to

the members of the committee on both sides, and to our colleagues not on the committee, like Mr. Polis, for their input and help on this legislation.

All of us were elected to Congress with the promise to enact laws that will make this country a better place for our children and our grandchildren. This starts with ensuring that every child has access to a quality education.

For many students and their parents, charter schools are a beacon of hope and, in some cases, the only beacon of hope. They symbolize opportunity, choice, and educational excellence, and it is past time to ensure more families and communities across the United States have access to these groundbreaking institutions.

By approving the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act today, we can help put more students on the path to a successful future. I urge my colleagues to put differences aside and to join together in supporting this legislation for the sake of those students trapped in underperforming schools across America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment offered by myself and Mr. Miller.

In all our goals for an improved education system, one stands above the rest: ensuring students have access to a quality education. My colleagues and I firmly believe supporting the growth of high- performing charter schools will help us reach that goal.

Charter schools epitomize choice and flexibility in education, and represent an efficient way school districts can transform an underperforming traditional public school into a dynamic learning institution. Thanks to the additional autonomy afforded to these institutions, charter schools have become renowned for their ability to effectively meet the needs of the unique student population.

A great case study of adaptability of charters is Locke High School, located in the tough South Central area of Los Angeles. Students in this area face a multitude of challenges--from gang violence to poverty to troubled homes. Locke High School had some of the lowest test scores and highest dropout rates in the country. Only roughly 5 percent of its students went on to 4-year colleges and universities.

In 2007, the LA Unified School District agreed to transform Locke High School into a public charter school. Charter school officials instituted broad changes to the school, such as improved facilities, new teachers, parental volunteer hours, uniforms, and strict disciplinary measures. As a result, attendance rates have increased to 90 percent--a real success story.

Stories of charter schools that inspire success in students no matter the circumstance exist beyond Locke High School. These institutions have benefited children and communities in cities across the United States. Unfortunately, charter schools are not growing as they should. This act will facilitate the development of high-performing charter schools by consolidating Federal funding streams, incentivizing States to support the development and expansion of these institutions, and evaluating the benefits these schools offer to students and their families.

However, as my colleagues and I continued to work together on this legislation, we realized even more could be done to help charter schools assist a variety of students, including those most at risk. The accomplishments of a charter school like Locke High School should be encouraged and supported. That's why we have developed language in the manager's amendment that would offer incentives to States that use charter schools to reach out to special populations, such as at-risk students.

Additionally, Members on both sides of the aisle decided steps must be taken to help Federal Charter School Program grants remain on a sustainable path. The manager's amendment directs the Secretary of Education to undertake proper planning efforts to ensure sufficient new grants can be awarded annually to the best applicants.

As we work to ensure all students have access to a quality education, this act is a step in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes commonsense adjustments to improve the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment is entirely consistent with the underlying purpose of the charter school movement. It improves the bill. I support the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not intend to oppose it.

This amendment simply emphasizes the importance of STEM education. It is widely recognized in the business community, the education community and throughout America that there is a growing gap that we need to fill in STEM education. By underscoring the importance of STEM education, this is helpful to the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman from Colorado has very succinctly, clearly, and I would even say eloquently explained the problem in the authorizing business in charter schools and offered a very, very good solution. This is a good amendment. It improves the bill. I support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

All across the country we've seen Governors and other State and local officials stand up in support of important education reform efforts that put the interest of children first. The underlying legislation before us today expands the number of State entities that may compete for charter school funding, allowing Governors to act on their support for charter schools. It addresses a real concern that has arisen in States that do not have a State education agency which supports charter schools.

Today, there are more than 420,000 students on charter school wait lists. And we've all seen the recent documentaries, ``Waiting for Superman'' and ``The Lottery.'' These chronicle low-income students trapped in failing schools, desperate for better education opportunities. Instead of helping States meet this truly incredible demand for more high quality charter schools, unfortunately, this amendment would actually stifle charter school growth by limiting a Governor's ability to support these institutions.

At the core of this bill is our desire to see more quality charter schools available for more students. More choice, more opportunity. Less ``Waiting for Superman.'' And so I oppose this amendment because it works in opposition to what the underlying bill is trying to do and what we're trying to do--and that's give the States more opportunities to create and replicate more quality charter schools.

Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe that the underlying legislation, as Ranking Member Miller alluded to, has language in it that strongly encourages, at the very least, Governors to work with their SEAs. But I would underscore the point that States are different. Some States are set up with different relationships between the different elected officers. They're not all elected the same way they are maybe in Wisconsin or something. Our underlying purpose here is to expand access to quality charter schools, and I believe this amendment gets in the way of that.

So I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

The underlying bill maintains and strengthens Federal support to assist charter schools in accessing credit for facilities construction, as it has in the past and will in this, but it doesn't get into the details of school construction. It doesn't take another step towards getting the Federal Government involved in school construction.

I understand there's a great excitement in some areas about putting green in any construction, or in anything for that matter. If it's green, apparently it's better.

This amendment, I'm afraid, will actually weaken efforts at the State level to fund school construction. It will dramatically increase the cost of building elementary and secondary charter schools. Where there's already limited funds available, some States, school districts, and charter schools will be forced to use union workers to construct public charter schools and to comply with this need for green schools.

Instead of imposing new burdens on charter schools, we should support State and local efforts to raise student academic achievement, stay out of the school construction business. This amendment is not an appropriate role for the Federal Government. I urge opposition to the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman from Iowa's amendment. That's an unusual place for me to be on the floor of this House, but I believe that the gentleman from California has correctly outlined the problem.

One of the strengths of an otherwise pretty seriously flawed law in No Child Left Behind was the disaggregation of data. It was allowing parents and, in this case, authorizers and Governors and school boards to look in and make sure that there was no element in a school body that was being left behind. It is important, since we're trying to replicate high quality schools, that that information be available. I'm afraid the gentleman from Iowa's amendment would, in fact, end up masking that information and depriving those who need to make decisions of the kind of information they need in order to make sure that we're replicating high quality charter schools.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.