American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 569 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point of order in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is should we now proceed and consider House Resolution 569. While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the point of order is merely a dilatory tactic.

In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation states that ``the bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.''

This legislation makes permanent a simplified research credit that will help open the door for economic growth and give businesses the certainty they need to thrive. This measure has been routinely extended and supported by both parties for many years. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 4438, a bill that would permanently extend and enhance the research and development tax credit.

The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4438 and provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, dozens of so-called temporary tax extensions expired at the end of 2013. Some of them, like the one we will consider under this rule, have long been bipartisan and long been renewed annually.

As a small business owner myself, one of the things that a business craves is certainty, certainty that you can plan around. Providing a certain tax structure is important to businesses.

Take, for example, the R&D tax credit for which this resolution provides consideration. The R&D tax credit has been repeatedly extended since 1981. If it doesn't make you think it is permanent, I don't know what does.

Too often, we here in Washington tell businesses ``trust us,'' that we can promise to extend X, Y, or Z tax provisions indefinitely. But they can't take that to the bank. They can't take our word that we will be able to deliver on promises that we make. The only thing they can rely on is the law itself. If our tax laws expire every year, it injects an uncertainty into the business environment that inhibits economic growth.

We all know that encouraging research and development makes good economic sense. Ernst & Young did a study that found that the R&D credit increases wages in both the short and long term. Additionally, the legislation we will consider also increases research-oriented employment in both the short and the long term.

Many of my friends on the other side talk about raising the minimum wage and about increasing jobs. Those are certainly worthy matters to discuss. Permanent extension of the R&D tax credit does just that. That is why both sides have routinely extended this tax credit in good times and in bad. It is time to make it part of the permanent Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, others have criticized this legislation because it only deals with a small portion of the expired tax provisions. However, to them I would say two things:

First, just as we have had to examine and pare back the discretionary side of the budget, we need to examine the tax side of the budget. There are over 200 tax expenditures, or spending on the tax side of the ledger, that, if all extended, will cost us more than $12 trillion over the next 10 years. We need to take a serious look at which credit should be extended.

And secondly, this provision is the first of many that will be considered by this House. While the Senate has been content to move in a ``comprehensive manner'' on issues like immigration and even tax extenders, the House has taken a more deliberate approach.

The Ways and Means Committee has marked up seven different extenders affecting a variety of industries that I hope the House will consider in the coming weeks. This will allow us to have a vehicle to take to conference with the Senate to provide individuals and businesses with the certainty that they so desperately crave.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Camp for beginning this process in earnest and look forward to consideration of additional measures at the appropriate time. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have supported the extension of the R&D credit because they have seen the value of making this provision permanent.

I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to begin, actually, by agreeing on a couple of points with my friend from Florida.

Sandy, if you will recall--and I know you do. I actually voted with you. I believe that relief should have been rendered. I am glad we did that, and it was done in a bipartisan fashion; so certainly, where I am concerned, my friend knows that I have been consistent on that point.

I also want to agree that there are a lot of extenders in this package that ought to be considered. As my friend knows, I actually raised one of those last night in an amendment at the Rules Committee-- and it was withdrawn--simply to make the very point that he is making, that we shouldn't only focus on a few, but that all of these need to be considered, and each of them ought to have an opportunity to be looked at and discussed.

I think Ways and Means owes us a pathway, if you will. I have no objection to what they are doing here today, but I do think we all need to understand what is going to be considered.

In my view, all of these, since we have routinely extended them in the past, probably ought to be considered in one fashion or another. I suspect, frankly, they will be because, once we arrive in the conference committee, the Senate will probably have passed that in total, and there will be some sort of discussion there. Again, my friend's point is an important one with which I agree, in that we ought to look at these things.

The reason we are beginning with this one--and with a series of five or six others is--number one, these are ones that both parties have generally agreed upon in the past. This is not a controversial measure. When they were in the majority in 2008 and in 2010, my friends extended this particular tax credit, along with many others, so we don't think it is controversial in the partisan sense.

Secondly, we think these are the types of tax cuts that broadly contribute to growth, and that is something I know both sides want. We want a growing economy, we want the jobs that that generates, and frankly, we want the additional tax revenue that a growing economy yields.

We have made some very tough decisions over the last few years, sometimes on a bipartisan basis, about reducing this deficit. When this majority came in, the deficit was running at about $1.4 trillion a year. This year, it will come in at something like $540 billion.

That is actually a very rapid decline. Along the way, some of those decisions have been pretty tough decisions--bipartisan, some of them. We, on our side, like to focus on the cuts we have made, and as my friend has pointed out, we have cut out literally hundreds of billions of dollars of discretionary spending.

None of that has been easy--again, sometimes on a bipartisan basis. Eventually, it had to pass a Democratic Senate and be signed by a Democratic President, so in a sense, those reductions had been bipartisan.

We have also generated revenue. The fiscal cliff bill, which I supported, preserved most of the Bush tax cuts, but it did generate revenue. Those things working together have helped bring the deficit down, but we are never going to get the deficit where I know both sides want it to be, if we don't have an economy that is growing and moving, creating jobs, innovating, is at the cutting edge, and is competitive with our international peers. This legislation is an attempt to do just that.

It is also an attempt, in my view, by Ways and Means and by Chairman Camp to begin the process of looking at these tax extenders one by one. While all of them have some constituency in this body and while many of them have overwhelming bipartisan constituencies, there is no question that not every single one of them would pass muster if it were looked at individually, so I applaud Chairman Camp and his committee for what they are doing.

I think we are trying to proceed in the right direction here. I don't have any illusions that this will be the final legislation. It will simply get us into conference with the Senate; and, hopefully, there will be more discussion there, but I think we are doing the right thing and are proceeding in the right way.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to agree with my friend about his concern on the deficit. I know it is genuine. Frankly, I appreciate the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle are concerned about the deficit.

I will remind them, when we took the majority in this Chamber in January of 2011, the deficit was about $1.4 trillion. It is about $540 billion today. So to suggest that this majority has not been serious about lowering the deficit and has not made really tough decisions-- sometimes with my friends on the other side of the aisle, sometimes not--I think is to misstate the facts.

We are concerned about the deficit. If renewing this R&D credit is irresponsible without an offset, I will point out to my friends that you did it in 2008 and in 2010 when you were in the majority, so I don't think you are being consistent here in terms of this particular measure.

Finally, I want to make the point that the real key to getting out of this situation in the long term is threefold. First, obviously restraining domestic discretionary spending, we have done that, and it has been hard to do. Second, I think getting entitlement reform, we haven't done that. Hopefully, someday, we will.

Third--and maybe most importantly--is getting the economy growing again, moving in a way that creates jobs first and foremost, that provides a higher standard of living for our people, but that, yes, generates extra revenue to the government. There is nothing like a growing economy to help shrink the deficit.

This is a measure that both sides in the past have agreed actually stimulates economic growth; creates jobs; and, therefore, generates additional revenue. I think that we ought to approve the rule and that we ought to consider this thoughtful consideration of our Tax Code on a piece by piece, item by item basis and move ahead.

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

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

I hate to keep repeating myself, but I think I will.

My friends passed this tax credit themselves when they were in the majority in 2008 and 2010. So while I appreciate this newfound concern about deficits on their side of the aisle, I remind them that since we have been in the majority, the deficit has actually declined--and declined pretty dramatically--from $1.4 trillion, which is what they handed over to us, to about $540 billion today.

I would be the first to agree that is far too high, but the movement has been in the right direction.

So to suggest that somehow this side of the aisle has been fiscally reckless or irresponsible, I think simply doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

Second, I remind my friends again this has been a bipartisan tax measure over the years. It has been routinely renewed, whether it was a Democratic Congress or Republican Congress, since 1981. It is as close as you ever get to be permanently in the Tax Code without actually being there.

But we still have that level of uncertainty that is associated every time that we have a discussion over the extension. We are simply removing, I think, that uncertainty, and we are doing what all sides have done regularly, which is recognize this is an important component of our Code and that we think it generates a great deal in terms of valuable research and generates economic growth and jobs.

I would agree with my friend that we are going to have to do different things to actually get the deficit down to where we want to go.

I serve on the Appropriations Committee, not on Ways and Means, and I will tell you we have really made dramatic cuts in the discretionary budget, some of which I think are actually too extensive. We have done that in an effort to try and, again, restore fiscal sanity.

I have cooperated with my friends on things like the fiscal cliff that have generated revenue. So it hasn't just all been cuts.

I do agree with my friends that Ways and Means needs to do two things: it is responsible for taxes and it is responsible for entitlements.

We all know that entitlement spending is the largest single driver of the deficit, by far. I would hope our friends, on a bipartisan basis, would sit down and start looking at entitlements on the Ways and Means Committee.

In terms of taxes, I think that is exactly what they are trying to do in this measure; that is, begin to look at this piece by piece and pick out the things that are worth keeping.

This credit, without question, both sides for over 30 years looked at and said, This is worth keeping. This is valuable. It generates jobs. It generates growth.

If my friends on Ways and Means want to look at this and tinker and change it around the edges, they are the tax experts. I trust them to bring us something here that is good. But remember, this bill is going to conference. There is a United States Senate that probably has a different view than us. It is going to sit down and negotiate with us. Then the bill has to go to the President.

So I look on this as a step in the right direction, not as a final destination point, let alone as some sort of dramatic departure from what we have been doing around here. It is actually pretty consistent with what we have been doing in terms of the policy.

What we are doing is making important correctives, turning what has been temporary into something that is permanent. And we are doing it piece by piece. Because, again, not all of these extenders, quite frankly, should be extended, but we ought to look at them one at a time and make that decision. I really think that is all we are about, Madam Speaker.

With that, I would again hope that we pass the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to disagree with my good friend from Florida on one thing, and I think it is probably just a phrase, but I want to put an important corrective in the Record.

My friend said we could finally vote on something that would be worthwhile. I would actually suggest that we voted on a number of things that have been worthwhile.

Frankly, this would have been in December, but the Ryan-Murray budget agreement, I think, was very worthwhile. I think that the omnibus spending bill that finally put us back into

some semblance of regular order in the appropriations process was worthwhile.

I think the farm bill that was passed as both a safety net program for many of our needy families in our country, as well as an important economic tool that my friend Mr. Lucas got through on a bipartisan basis, was, again, very worthwhile.

I think the flood insurance bill that this Congress has passed on a bipartisan basis was, again, very worthwhile.

I think the fact that we have dealt with the doc fix, as there has actually been in Ways and Means an agreement as to what we should do-- not an agreement on how to fund it, but we bought a year's worth of time so our health care providers that do such a great job helping and seniors and our needy people on both Medicare and Medicaid are going to be continued to be reimbursed--I think that is a good job.

I think this Congress doing the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research bill, taking money out of political conventions and putting it toward pediatric research, that is a pretty good job.

I think the fact that a couple of appropriations bills have actually crossed this floor on a bipartisan basis and are ready to go to conference earlier than any time since 1974 is a pretty good job.

So while we disagree--and I wouldn't say this is the most productive Congress in modern American history--to suggest that it is not doing its job and moving along legislation expeditiously is something I do have at least a different view on.

I want to agree with my friend from California on H-1B visas. I actually think he is correct about that. As I understand it, there has been action on that issue in the Judiciary Committee. It actually passed out of committee. When it comes to the floor is sort of not in my lane, but I do hope we do deal with that.

And no question, the whole immigration issue that my friend brings up is an important one. I appreciate him doing that. I thanked him for doing that last night. I thank him for doing it again today.

I don't think this is probably the vehicle for a comprehensive bill. I think it would probably meet more resistance. But talking about it and pointing out the importance of dealing with some of these issues I think is extremely helpful.

It doesn't change the basic fact, though, Madam Speaker. What we are dealing with here is pretty simple, but pretty important, though. Let's do something that in the past we have agreed on on a bipartisan basis. Let's focus on research and development so America is always at the cutting edge of technology and job creation and give our entrepreneurs and our businesses this very important tool and a sense of certainty that it is going to be there.

Again, this is something we have been doing since 1981. It is not new. It has been bipartisan. I think making it permanent, letting businesses know that we can actually work together, is the right thing to do.

Then we ought to proceed, as the Ways and Means Committee is proceeding, systematically and look at all these other extenders, some of which will make it, some of which won't. We will undoubtedly have a vigorous debate about that.

It won't always be a partisan debate. I suspect on some of these things I will be with my friends on their side of the aisle and vice versa because things like the Indian Lands Tax Credit I don't consider partisan. It gets very good Democratic and Republican support all the time.

So, again, let's work together. I think that is what Ways and Means is trying to do. They are advancing a product systematically and appropriately.

I think we have the right rule for it. I think we have a good piece of legislation. I suspect and certainly hope there will be a strong bipartisan vote on the underlying legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida. It is always a pleasure to appear with him.

I do want to make a point that, with respect to all tax provisions, they almost always do come to this floor under a closed rule because, quite frankly, they have to be scored, i.e., we have to figure out how much the amendments cost and what have you.

So it is very seldom we have an open rule on anything that deals with tax policy, and I think we are following customary procedure here.

I also, again, want to make the basic point that this is legislation that, honestly, I think, over the years, most of the time, both sides of the aisle have agreed upon.

There is no objection to research and tax credits. Both sides have decided it is good policy, that it helps American companies be competitive. It helps us stay at the head of the pack, in terms of innovation and technical development in this country.

This is probably one of the least controversial provisions in the Tax Code, so I think moving it and making it permanent, removing all uncertainty and confusion, is probably, well, in my view, certainly a good thing for our economy. I hope, after the rule vote, that we can come together on that.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues to move the process forward. This approach is important because it allows the House to consider individual tax provisions on their own merits and not hidden by a larger deal.

This credit is good for economic growth. It both creates jobs and increases wages. It is important that we not lose sight of that in the midst of this debate, so I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 569 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

15) to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 15.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to have a clean rule around a bill that I had the opportunity to work on, along with the gentlelady from North Carolina and with our ranking member and chair, with regards to taking what we can agree on in education, which is reauthorizing the Federal Charter School Program.

We had similar language in both the Republican ESEA reauthorization, as well as in the Democratic substitute. Most Republicans voted for the version that they had, and almost every Democrat, except for two, voted for the Democratic version.

We were able to then work out the very small differences between the two pieces of language with regard to charter schools, present it before the entire House under a reasonable rule that allows for a broad variety of amendments--12 amendments--from both sides of the aisle, many of which improve the bill and some of which I oppose, but which are, by no means, fatal to the bill. The process fundamentally works.

Unfortunately, in this rule, we have now had to alter the way that we are dealing with another unrelated, unpaid-for effort, namely, a bill that could add $155.5 billion to our deficit because of the extension of the R&D tax credit.

Essentially, under the initial effort, the Republicans failed to waive their statutory PAYGO rules. What that means is that they failed to say: we don't have to pay for this bill. They failed to say: this bill will add to the deficit. In a few moments, my colleague, Mr. Van Hollen, will explain what that means.

What the American people need to know is that this rule prevents Congress from doing fake math, and it essentially acknowledges that the Republican proposal to extend the R&D tax credit would be a deficit buster and increase our deficit by $155.5 billion.

It takes away any pretension that somehow this bill would be paid for by some other mechanism; so while the amendments allowed in the content of the bill with regard to charter schools, which I will talk about in a moment, are largely noncontroversial and enjoy support from both sides of the aisle, the budgetary pretense that is removed from this bill, which reveals that the Republican proposal on the R&D tax credit increases our deficit by $150 billion, is a controversial element that now occurs in this same rule.

I now want to talk about the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act. This important bipartisan bill improves and modernizes the Federal Charter Schools Program.

We essentially established a 2.0 version 14 years later, in having learned a lot about what works and doesn't work in the field with regard to public charter schools. We promote equity in opportunity for our students across our country.

I am very pleased and honored that many of the important aspects of the bipartisan bill that I have had the honor to lead, the All-STAR Act, have been included in this underlying bill, as well as almost all of the priorities for the Democrats and Republicans.

When Congress first authorized the Charter Schools Program in 1994, charter schools were very early in their existence. They were an emerging effort to encourage innovation in our public schools.

Public charter schools with the ability to make site-based decisions--and that is essentially what charter schools are, they are public schools with site-based management--now serve more than 2 million students in 42 States and in the District of Columbia.

Sadly, there are over 600,000 students who remain on public charter school waiting lists, unable to attend the schools of their choice.

The promise of public charter schools is that they are free to be innovative when it comes to instruction, scheduling, time-on-task, policies, mission, and hours. Because they have site-based management, rather than being run by a larger entity like a district or a State, they have the flexibility to do what it takes to meet the needs of parents in their communities.

Public charter schools don't charge tuition, nor do they have any entrance requirements, nor are they allowed to discriminate against students on any basis. This bill goes a step further in ensuring transparency and accountability for charter schools to allay the concerns of some on my side of the aisle that they are not fully compliant with many of these areas.

The Charter Schools Program is a crucial lifeline for growing and replicating successful models. Charter school programs are critical to ensuring that every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code or economic background, has access to a free, quality education, which is more important than ever in order for one to succeed in the 21st century.

I am proud to say that H.R. 10, which will be considered under this rule, passed the Committee on Education and the Workforce with a very strong, bipartisan vote of 36-3. This is an example of a bill that has gotten better every step of the way.

A similar bill in the 112th Congress passed overwhelmingly with over 350 votes. Better language with regard to charter schools was included in both the Republican version of the ESEA reauthorization, as well as in the Democratic substitute.

Now, we have a stand-alone bill before us which takes the very best of both, the bill that was in the Republican version and in the Democratic version. It builds on it, and it creates a Federal charter school program that, truly, Democrats and Republicans can be proud of as a legacy for the next decade.

Having founded two innovative public charter schools before I was elected to Congress, I understand firsthand how the freedom to innovate and having the flexibility to pursue a unique mission can truly help serve all kids.

Without the Federal charter school program, many charter schools across our country wouldn't even be able to get off the ground. We owe it to kids who are being underserved or who are unserved today to be able to upgrade this program and ensure it can meet the challenges of the 21st century.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

How exciting that in a week here of partisan division with regard to Benghazi, with regard to Lois Lerner, with regard to a deficit-busting $155 billion tax expenditure, how exciting that Democrats and Republicans can come together around something that is so important for the next generation of American children--that is, making sure that our limited investment in public charter schools has the maximum positive impact on student achievement across our country.

A 2013 study conducted by Stanford University's Center for Research on Educational Outcomes found that public charter schools often outperform their peers in traditional public schools, and many have demonstrated substantial progress in closing the achievement gap.

The study's findings were particularly impressive for low-income students. The study found that low-income students gained 14 additional days of learning in reading and 22 in math--compared to traditional school peers--and English language learners gained 36 days of learning in reading and in math.

What is clear, however, is just how public charter schools with site- based management have the ability to innovate and succeed. They also have the ability to fail and do poorly.

Not all charter schools are serving students well. Not all charter schools meet their goal of serving at-risk students. That is why this bill improves transparency and accountability for the public charter school sector as a whole, as well as for authorizers--that is, the entity, usually a school district, sometimes a State or special entity--that grants the charter, which is another word for contract, to the provider of educational services at the site-based level.

Mr. Speaker, all public schools, regardless of their governance structure, whether they are public magnet schools, whether they are neighborhood schools, whether they are public charter schools, whether they are schools of choice operated by a school district, every public school should live up to our promise of providing a quality education; and every child should have access to a quality education that allows them to succeed in the workforce, in college, and in life.

In this era of constrained public resources, we need to maximize the impact of every dollar spent by making sure that what we invest in works, and that is exactly what this bill does.

It allows for investment in proven models to expand and replicate success, to serve more kids, many of whom were already on waiting lists and forced to attend a school that is worse than the one that they seek to attend. This bill will help alleviate those waiting lists.

It is important to focus our resources and double down on public charter schools that get great results and ensure that we don't squander our limited resources on public charter schools that fail to meet the needs of their students.

We want to make sure that charter school operators with a strong evidence of student achievement and strong management capacity are able to replicate and expand. That is why, under this bill, we create incentives for schools to achieve and replicate excellence by awarding grants directly to some of the highest performing public charter schools in our country that are helping to allow more and more kids from at-risk backgrounds to achieve the American Dream.

This particular program, which was an important part of the bipartisan All-STAR Act, helps to seed the growth of high-performing public charter schools in States that might otherwise not meet the criteria.

The gentleman from Washington State mentioned that his State and some others have a cap. Well, very importantly, even where a district or State policy environment is not ideal and, therefore, they might not be a priority for receiving grants that they administer, nevertheless, charter schools serving kids in those areas can receive grants because of the networks of charter schools that are high performing in States that might not have policies that are as open to charters as they should be.

Mr. Speaker, what Democrats and Republicans coming together shows the country, shows the public charter school movement, shows the school districts, is that a multistakeholder approach can work for our country.

I want to thank the many individuals who provided input on this important bill, ranging from school districts to States to teachers' unions, to charter school board members, to families who are in charter schools, and families who languish on waiting lists, wanting their child to attend a better school.

The result of this multiyear process is a bill that reflects the very best policies to upgrade the existing charter school authorization program, improve transparency and accountability for public charter schools, ensure that our limited Federal resources are invested in schools that work and ensure that more kids, regardless of their geography and economic background, can attend a school that prepares them to succeed in life.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentlelady has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about some of my experiences in the charter school movement before joining this body. I had the opportunity to found a public charter school, New America School, now which has five campuses in Colorado and New Mexico. I also had the opportunity to cofound Academy of Urban Learning in Denver, Colorado.

New America School seeks to meet the needs of English language learning students who are a little bit older--15,

16, 18, 19--and far too often didn't have a place in the traditional public school system.

Many of these students work jobs--might work a day job, might work a night job. That means, if they work a day job, the only school that would be a viable option for them would be an evening school. That is why New America school has flexible scheduling, allowing students to attend day or night, depending on their real-world life circumstances.

In addition, many of the young women attending the school have young children of their own, and that is a real-life need that, absent some kind of daycare reimbursement or daycare, many of them would not be able to attend.

So New America School offered daycare reimbursement--in some cases, daycare--so that these young women could continue to attend school and get a high school diploma.

First and foremost, the focus of New America School is to ensure that students can learn to be fluent and literate in the English language, which is so important to be able to succeed in today's economy.

As a result of this innovative approach and the focus on meeting student needs, thousands of students have enrolled in the various campuses of the New America School. I was proud to not only found them, but to have served as superintendent for 2 years.

I can honestly say that, absent this Federal program, the title V grant, we would probably not have been able to get New America School off the ground. Like so many charter schools across the country, until the doors open--and in that first year or two, when you are just beginning to add students, it is absolutely critical to be able to have this investment to open the doors.

Over the medium and long term, the schools need to stand or fall on their own. They need to succeed on their own and meet a market niche. We need to make sure that they are sound from a budgetary perspective, and this bill includes language that ups the bar on authorizers to do just that.

This bill passed the Education and the Work Force Committee with a 36-3 vote. I honestly can't remember another bill that had such strong bipartisan support recently on that committee. It is similar to and actually represents an improvement from H.R. 2218, which passed last Congress, 365-54.

This bill will improve charter school access and services for students; ensures that our limited Federal investment supports the expansion and replication of the very best high-quality charter schools; requires more transparency and accountability for charter schools; gives charter schools additional tools to continue to serve at-risk kids pursuant to their mission, including free and reduced lunch; as well as ensuring that they have the tools they need to serve a pro rata number of special education kids.

Almost every Democrat and Republican in this entire body has already voted for this bill. A very similar, almost identical bill was in both the Republican ESEA reauthorization and the Democratic alternative.

This takes very few differences between those versions, irons them out, and has language that both Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller agree builds upon the consensus that was reached in each of those bills.

That is why I hope that this bill passes with strong bipartisan support. There is a reason that we need strong bipartisan support. Unlike far too many bills that we call single chamber bills that are considered in this body and languish in the Senate--I understand much of the frustration of the majority party--this bill, with a resounding bipartisan vote, can be sent to the Senate, where a very nearly identical bill has a growing number of bipartisan cosponsors with the message that this body overwhelmingly supports improving our public charter school program; and we encourage the Senate to take it up.

That is why every Member of this body's vote, Mr. Speaker, is so important on this bill. This bill will pass. This bill will have bipartisan support.

For any of my friends on the fence, this is our last great opportunity to leave a positive legacy of improving quality of and accountable for public charter schools.

AFT and NEA have acknowledged that the stronger accountability in this bill will improve the quality and accountability and transparency of charter schools, supported by charter school advocates as well as authorizers, like school districts.

The multistakeholder approach that Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller have presided over is a model of how this body can come together around legislation that improves our country. I hope that not only this bill is taken up by the Senate after a strong bipartisan vote in this body, but I hope it serves as a model not only for what we can do in education, but what we can do on a number of pressing issues that address this country, whether it is balancing our Federal budget, whether it is reauthorizing Federal transportation programs or establishing an infrastructure bank. There is, in fact, a bipartisan way forward. That is the opportunity that my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle have before us now.

Public charter schools are making a difference for kids across our country every day. With a limited Federal role, we can ensure that they make an even bigger difference. The families that are languishing on waiting lists have the opportunity to send their kids to expansion of an existing successful charter school or the replication or a second campus of a charter school that we know works, that we know can transform lives, that we know can help that young kid attend college, get a good job and, guess what, maybe even serve in this august body someday.

The most exciting thing about public education in this country is that there are examples of what works. You could take any at-risk demographic group, whether they are English language learners, whether they are low-income earners, whether they are in the most remote rural part of our country or in the poorest inner city area, and find an educational model that works. Some of them are run by school districts, as in neighborhood schools; some are run by school districts as schools of choice or magnet schools; and some are run as public charter schools under a contract in the school district or other authorizer.

What we need to do to help make sure that more kids have access to opportunity is expand and replicate what is already working in public education. That glimmer of hope, those shining islands of success and excellence with the passage of this bill, can serve more children in our country to ensure that more kids have access and more families have access to choose the public schools that work for them.

I want to thank Ranking Member Miller, Chairman Kline, and the majority and minority staff of the committee for working hard to craft a bipartisan bill without poison pills, without gotchas, without partisanship, that recognizes the vital role that strong, accountable, high-performing public charter schools can play in educational success. I was honored to work with them and with the staff on this legislation to improve, upgrade, and modernize this critical program.

I encourage my colleagues to understand that this vote matters. We want to ensure that this bill is not a single Chamber bill. We want to make sure that this bill does not languish in the Senate. And the best way to do that is to send a resounding vote, even stronger than the vote in the last Congress, that in these times of partisan discord, Democrats and Republicans can come together around commonsense legislation that helps kids succeed and helps America's neediest families send their kids to a quality public school. This bill will help maximize the impact of every dollar invested by focusing on the highest quality educational providers.

I strongly urge my Democratic and Republican colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 10 and ensure that our limited Federal dollars go only to quality programs.

As we mentioned earlier, unfortunately, I cannot support this rule. The rule contains a budgetary fix on an unrelated item. I am confident this rule will pass and allow for consideration of the charter school bill and a reasonable set of amendments, and I wish that I could support a rule that did just that. But this bill does include $150 billion in deficit spending which Democrats have not agreed to.

Public school choice is effective and empowering. Families know what is right for their children better than politicians do and better than school district officials do; therefore, parents should have the opportunity to choose the public school of their choice that meets the parents' and the family's need.

H.R. 10 represents the very best promise of bipartisanship in education. For those that embrace school choice, H.R. 10 rewards State policies that contribute to public charter school success. For those who are skeptical of public charter schools, H.R. 10 builds in stronger protections for charter school oversight, transparency, and accountability. There is something for everybody in this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule but ``yes,'' ``yes,'' ``yes'' on the underlying bill. And I look forward to continuing this tradition of bipartisanship, hopefully extending beyond education to the other pressing national challenges we face. Through this bill, we can improve access to great schools for our Nation's children.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 576 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 576 provides for a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act.

My colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and I have been working to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and to that end, the House passed H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, last July.

Our efforts in reauthorization have centered on four principles: reducing the Federal footprint in education, empowering parents, supporting effective teachers, and restoring local control. H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act, takes a small bipartisan step in the reauthorization process and ensures that local communities have the flexibility needed to meet the needs of their students.

While H.R. 5 is languishing in the Senate, the House remains committed to continuing its work and has broken out the charter school programs as an area of agreement between House Republicans and Democrats.

Despite good intentions, there is widespread agreement that the current

law is no longer effectively serving students. My hope is that, after the House passes H.R. 10 this week, our Senate colleagues will follow our lead and will provide the same opportunity to their Members to work together in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion and pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit a remarkable public school in Kernersville, North Carolina. In addition to preparing students academically for college, the North Carolina Leadership Academy, a charter school, is publicly committed to giving students ``the opportunity to develop true leadership qualities and become creative thinkers and problem-solvers while retaining a sense of responsibility for their families, their community, and their country.''

It was a privilege to spend time with the remarkable students and faculty of this public charter school. I was truly impressed by their commitment to scholarship, by the leadership skills of the students and by the remarkable academic progress that was on display.

All NCLA students in grades 7-12 participate in Civil Air Patrol, a program established by Congress in 1946 that uses military-style uniforms, customs, courtesies, ceremonies, and drill in order to improve students' leadership skills, fitness, and character.

This program is working. NCLA places a strong emphasis on family involvement, and the level of commitment demonstrated by parents, families, and the Piedmont community at large was impressive.

H.R. 10 will empower States and local communities to replicate the success of high-quality charter schools like NCLA and encourage choice, innovation, and excellence in education. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to take the opportunity to thank my colleague from Colorado for the work that he has done on charter schools, for understanding the very important nature of charter schools and for bringing his expertise to this issue.

I also want to thank him for acknowledging the bipartisan effort that has gone into bringing this legislation to the floor and for the very good way

that we have gone through regular order to bring this bill to the floor. I appreciate that little history that he has given us.

I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), my classmate and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Yesterday, our Democratic colleagues in the Rules Committee properly notice that had the R&D bill would have inadvertently triggered automatic cuts to other programs to offset the bill. We appreciate the spirit of comity that existed and that brought that to our attention.

H. Res. 576 ensures that the bill operates the way it was intended to operate. It was an inadvertent error. Excluding this bill from the PAYGO scorecard will ensure that other programs are not affected, which is consistent with the treatment of other tax bills.

I would like to point out to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the PAYGO amendment made by H. Res. 576 is substantially identical to section 401 of Senator Wyden's extenders bill, S. 2260, the EXPIRE Act. However, they have failed to point that out.

Statutory PAYGO was created by the Democrats when they controlled Congress. Statutory PAYGO maintains a running tally of the cumulative deficit impact for bills signed into law. If the threshold is exceeded, a sequester is triggered to offset the excess.

When Republicans took control of the House, we adopted a new rule known as CUTGO, which requires that any new direct spending be offset by cuts to other direct spending programs.

We should reduce spending and reform our entitlement programs, Mr. Speaker. House Republicans have shown we are willing to do so, and we earnestly desire a partner in the Senate and the White House to do just that. But we should also grow our economy. This bill will help us do just that, and we hope we will find partners on the other side of the aisle.

Again, I want to say that the PAYGO amendment made by H. Res. 576 is substantially identical to section 401 of Senator Wyden's extenders bill, S. 2260, the EXPIRE Act. My guess is my colleagues will be supporting that.

I now would like to turn our attention back to the subject at hand, charter schools, and I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Holding).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my colleague from North Carolina points out, support for school choice is growing. A 2013 public opinion survey found that 73 percent of Americans supported school choice, whereas 67 percent of Americans supported school choice in 2010.

Forty-two States and the District of Columbia have passed legislation to support the funding of public charter schools. They are becoming more popular. In the 2012-2013 academic year, more than 500 new charter schools opened across the country, which means there are now 6,200 charter schools in America and 2 million charter school students.

If recent growth continues, they will double in number by 2025 and will educate 4.6 million children. That amounts to 10 percent of all public school students.

Another sign of their popularity is that charter schools have over 1 million students on their wait lists.

H.R. 10 modernizes and streamlines the current Charter Schools Program authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ensure that States can support the replication and expansion of high- quality charter schools.

These schools empower parents to play a more active role in their child's education, open doors for teachers to pioneer fresh teaching methods, encourage State and local innovation, and help students escape underperforming schools.

H.R. 10 is a commonsense approach to updating the Charter Schools Program by streamlining multiple charter school programs, improving quality, and promoting the growth of the charter school sector at the State level.

This bill benefits children, their parents, and--ultimately--our economy. By increasing the number of high-quality charter schools, more children will acquire the skills they need to succeed in a competitive global economy.

We owe it to our children to provide them with the best education possible, and that is what this bill was designed to do.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Unfortunately, over the last 4 decades, the Federal Government's role in elementary and secondary education has increased dramatically. The Department of Education currently runs more than 80 K-12 education programs, many of which overlap.

As a school board member, I saw how the vast reporting requirements for these Federal programs tie the hands of State and local school leaders and prevent them from making the best education available to their students.

Since 1965, Federal education funding has tripled, yet student achievement remains flat. More money is clearly not going to solve the challenges we face in education.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has refused to work with Congress to address these challenges and has, instead, taken unprecedented action to further expand its authority over America's schools.

Through the President's waiver scheme and pet programs such as Race to the Top, the Secretary of Education has granted himself complete discretion to use taxpayer dollars to coerce States into enacting the President's preferred education reforms.

Adding insult to injury, President Obama continues to push for more Federal education spending, requesting a staggering $82.3 billion in mandatory and discretionary funds for the Department of Education in his fiscal year 2015 budget.

Our children deserve better, Mr. Speaker. It is past time to acknowledge more taxpayer dollars and more Federal intrusion cannot address the challenges facing schools.

H.R. 10 recognizes that local communities know their needs better than any bureaucrat in Washington and supports the sharing of best practices among charter schools and traditional public schools. Our students do better when educators work together to put in place the best strategies to help students learn.

Additionally, H.R. 10 specifically encourages charter schools to reach out to at-risk students in their communities, as well as those who have disabilities or are English learners.

Again, the local officials know best how to serve their communities, and the Federal Government should not tie their hands as they work to make the best decisions for their students.

I urge my colleagues, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We do not have further speakers, Mr. Speaker, but I do intend to share some additional information on this bill and the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I want to truly thank my colleague from Colorado for his eloquent words of support for charter schools and for his past efforts in this area. I particularly want to thank him for urging the Senate to take up this legislation. As he well knows, we have a lot of good legislation over in the Senate that has not been acted upon, and I hope this bill will have a better fate in the Senate than other bills have had.

Mr. Speaker, it would be imprudent to have a conversation about education and the use of taxpayer money without discussing the need for accountability. Hardworking taxpayers want to see their tax dollars being used in the best way possible and expect the Federal Government to be a wise steward of their dollars.

H.R. 10 builds on the principle of local accountability by modernizing the Charter Schools Program to authorize States to use the funding to replicate and expand high-quality charter schools. The schools with proven student success will have the opportunity to offer those advantages to more students.

States and local educators know their students best, and I urge my colleagues to modernize Federal school programs and respond to these needs by supporting both this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, many of my Republican colleagues and I would prefer we abide by the Constitution and take the Federal Government out of education altogether, but that is not what we are recommending here today because we know we can't achieve that goal. My assumption, though, is that all Members of Congress--all Members of Congress--agree that as long as taxpayer money is being used by the Federal Government to fund education, that Congress has a responsibility to make a strong effort to ensure that those who receive hardworking taxpayer money are being held accountable for how they use it. Washington should live within its means, just as families all across this country do, and limited resources require wise stewardship.

This bill consolidates multiple funding streams and grant programs that support charter schools into the existing State grant program, eliminating a separate authorization for charter school facilities funding. It reduces the overall authorization for charter school programs from $450 million to $300 million. By consolidating the funding streams into the existing State charter school program, the bill removes authority from the Secretary of Education to pick winners and losers and control the growth of the charter school sector. This authority is placed largely in the hands of States, where it belongs.

H.R. 10 promotes high-quality charter schools by updating the Charter Schools Program to reflect the success and growth of the charter school movement. States are authorized to use funds under the program to support the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools in addition to supporting new innovative charter school models.

Mr. Speaker, my background as an educator, school board member, mother, and grandmother reinforces my belief that students are best served when people at the local level are in control of education decisions. I also believe that education is the most important tool that Americans at any age can have.

I was the first person in my family to graduate from high school and went to college, where I worked full-time and attended school part- time. It took me 7 years to earn my bachelor's degree, and I continued to work my way through my master's and doctoral degrees. From my own experience, I am convinced this is the greatest country in the world for many reasons, not the least of which is that a person like me, who grew up extremely poor in a house with no electricity and no running water, with parents with very little formal education and no prestige at all, could work hard and be elected to the United States House of Representatives.

No legislation is perfect, and that is why I look forward to working with my colleagues to address their concerns and improve this legislation through the amendment process. However, I have never been one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And while H.R. 10 isn't perfect, it is a step in the right direction of empowering parents, teachers, and local school districts, and increasing school choice and giving other young people the same opportunities that I and others have had to improve our lot in life. That is why I am a supporter of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, from Virginia.

I thank the gentleman for that information with reference to the legislation for next week. He leads with a bill that is entitled American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014.

As the gentleman knows, we have an agenda which I have talked to him about briefly. We call it Make It In America, which is essentially about growing manufacturing and encouraging manufacturers to return to the United States and encouraging people when they want to go into manufacturing to do so here in America.

Not only will that provide for a ``Made in America'' label all over the world, but it will also provide the kind of middle class jobs and opportunities that we need.

Part of that agenda, I will tell my friend, is to make permanent the research and development tax credit. This bill does that. This bill also costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion, maybe a little less, over 10 years. It is unpaid for.

The series of bills that were passed by the Ways and Means Committee will cost $310 billion. They are also unpaid for. I suggest to my friend--and as he knows, I preach relatively regularly that one of the things that we need to do for the business community and for America is to get ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path.

Mr. Camp offered a comprehensive piece of legislation, Mr. Leader, as you know, which I think was an honest effort, but it also made hard choices. It made hard choices not to increase the deficit and, therefore, provided offsets for tax cuts. I think that is absolutely essential for us to do.

This bill that we will consider next week, which is a proposition I think most of us support, and that is giving businesses the insurance that the research and development tax credit will in fact be available not only for 1 year, but for a series of years--in this case, I believe 10 years.

What the business community doesn't need and what America doesn't need is making the deficit worse. As a matter of fact, Mr. Leader, your party talks a lot about bringing the deficit down. This goes in exactly the opposite direction, and I think that is lamentable. I said $150 billion. It is actually $155 billion over 10 years.

I would hope that the party that is demanding that unemployment insurance be paid for, that is demanding that the sustainable growth rate be paid for, and that any change in the sequester be paid for, ought to have consistency and not add $155 billion to our deficit in a vote next week on something that I think we are all for; and it is easy, Mr. Leader, as you well know, to vote for tax cuts--easy. It takes no courage whatsoever.

I have been at this business 45 years. It has been my experience that, over those 45 years, it is easy for Members to vote for tax cuts. What is hard to do is to pay for the policies you adopt. This bill does not do that. This bill makes the deficit worse, exacerbates the lack of confidence that Americans have in the fiscal responsibility of their country, and puts us in a worse place.

So I would hope, Mr. Leader, that before this bill comes to the floor, that you and the Rules Committee and Mr. Camp, as he did in the bill that he offered to this House, which was, frankly, dismissed out of hand because it made tough decisions, this bill makes no tough decisions. It has a tax cut. It has all the candy and none of the spinach.

It is all good, and nobody has to pay the price. Nobody has to take responsibility. I think that is lamentable, and I would hope that, before this bill comes to the floor, there would be a way to pay for this bill.

I want to suggest to you that there is a way to pay for it. There is a way to pay for the other extenders that the committee wants, and that is by passing a comprehensive immigration bill.

Mr. Boehner indicated that that was not being done because it was tough and people didn't want to do tough things. I understand that. It is hard to do tough things. That is why they are called tough. Mr. Boehner now says he was kidding when he said that.

My view is he was deadly serious, and the reason we are considering this bill next week is because it is easy to do. The reason we are not considering comprehensive immigration reform is because it is difficult, but comprehensive immigration reform would pay for all of the tax cuts that are being proposed in these six extenders and, indeed, in all of the extenders that are proposed by the Senate Finance Committee.

They only proposed that for 2 years, not 10 years, but it would pay for all of them. In fact, CBO says if we pass comprehensive immigration reform, it would mean $200 billion for the next 10 years and $900 billion over the next 20 years.

In December, the Budget Committee chairs, Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Murray, were able to come up with a substantial sequester replacement. We ought to be able to do that as well.

Let me close this part of my comment with two quotes, one from Republican Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, who said:

As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for

themselves.

And then Mr. Alan Greenspan, who initially said in 2001 and 2003 that he thought the tax cuts would pay for themselves. However, upon review of those tax cuts, he came back in response to a question on ``Meet the Press'' from David Gregory, and the question was:

You don't agree with the Republican leaders who say tax

cuts pay for themselves?

Mr. Greenspan:

They do not.

So all of your Republican colleagues are being asked to vote for a $155 billion increase in the deficit, which they all say they want to bring down. I am sure they will get up and rationalize--as they did in 1981, in 2001, and 2003--that those tax cuts would magically grow the economy, so that they would not exacerbate the deficit. In the 33 years I have been in Congress, that has not been our experience.

So, Mr. Leader, I very sincerely hope that we can join together in a bipartisan way and support this legislation because it is the right thing to do in terms of growing manufacturing, and it is the right thing to do in bringing down our deficit to pay for it.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would say that the rationale he uses, however, is applicable to the sustainable growth rate reimbursement for doctors serving Medicare patients. We do that every year as well. The Republican side of the aisle demands that be paid for.

We do unemployment insurance.

I would be glad to yield on that.

I thank the gentleman for his observation, Mr. Speaker. The other side of the aisle laments the deficit; they lament the debt. We have the debt, we have the deficit because we don't pay for what we buy. That is why we have a debt. That is why we have a deficit.

When we were in charge, we put in a pay-as-you-go rule. That rule said, if you are going to spend money, this is essentially a tax expenditure; it is a worthy tax expenditure. It is something that I support. It helps to grow the economy, but it is a tax expenditure.

No one on this floor can say that it does not make the deficit worse; no one with any degree of credibility.

The argument has been made, of course, though, that tax cuts, they will grow so much that you won't get the deficit. That is what President Reagan argued and his proponents argued in 1981. The debt increased 187 percent under President Ronald Reagan because they didn't pay for themselves.

When the Republicans took over, Mr. Speaker, they amended the rule so we didn't have to pay for things. This bill comes to the floor without any necessity to pay for it. So we will give a tax cut, assuming it passes, and somebody is going to pay for it. My children, my grandchildren, your children, Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who will pay for it because we are going to make a decision, apparently, not to pay for something that we know is going to increase the deficit.

So the analogy when we want things paid for is not always followed, Mr. Speaker, for instance, unemployment insurance almost invariably not paid for. Almost every economist says investing in unemployment insurance grows the economy, will help grow the GDP, but we don't follow that practice here, unfortunately.

We have a bipartisan paid-for unemployment insurance bill that the Senate has passed that we can't even get to the floor. That is paid for. It grows the economy and it helps 2.5 million people who are falling through the cracks. Yet we bring a bill to the floor that has a $155 billion cost, we don't pay for it, and the unemployment insured, 2.5 million, are ignored.

Mr. Speaker, we don't think that policy is one that we ought to pursue. We would hope, again, before this bill comes to the floor that it is paid for.

I referred to comprehensive immigration reform, Mr. Speaker.

I will yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment on a previous comment.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman point that out. I have been trying to work with the gentleman and his party for some period of time now starting with Bowles-Simpson and some other comprehensive suggestions.

As I said, Mr. Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has offered a comprehensive bill. I don't agree with some of the things in it, but it is an honest piece of legislation that makes the tradeoffs, the tough choices, that need to be made. This bill does not. That is my point.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, because I know the majority leader has another engagement, comprehensive immigration reform, I said that it scores approximately $1 trillion positive for our economy over the next 20 years; but it is also morally the right thing to do to fix a broken system, a system that doesn't work, with which everybody agrees.

I would again appeal to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. I understand that there are many on his side of the aisle that don't agree with it. Fine. Vote against it, but give this House an opportunity. Give the American people the opportunity to have a comprehensive immigration bill voted in the people's House on this floor so that we can fix a broken system, or offer alternatives to that which is proposed by the United States Senate and passed overwhelmingly by the United States Senate.

If the gentleman wants me to yield to him, I will, certainly.

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental problem is not my way or the highway. It is no way.

The Republican Judiciary Committee has passed out a number of immigration reform bills. The Homeland Security Committee headed by a Republican chairman has passed out an immigration reform bill dealing with border security. None of those bills have been brought to the floor. It is not a question about liking the Senate bill or trusting the President of the United States.

Everybody agrees, Mr. Speaker, the immigration system is broken; but there is no way, no bill, no option that has been brought to this floor to fix that system to respond to what everybody agrees is a broken system of immigration.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Taoiseach, otherwise known as the Prime Minister of Ireland, celebrated St. Patrick's Day here with us at a luncheon, and part of his speech was about passing comprehensive immigration reform.

They don't have to take our bill; they don't have to take the Senate bill; but, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to have a bill on the floor to fix a broken system. It is not a question of whether they trust the President; it is whether or not they trust the word of the House of Representatives that it can work its will. I would hope that we could work our will on this issue. It is important for the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to come and join in an aspect of our bipartisan work that is working for children, and I thank the Education Committee and Mr. Polis for their leadership in focusing on the idea that our children need the best education.

I also know the hearts of the Education Committee members and Mr. Polis in recognizing that public schools are a valuable asset, having been educated throughout my primary and secondary education in public schools. We want to have the opportunity to match excellence with excellence and to ensure that the oversight allows for excellence.

So H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Act, brings all of this together: respecting teachers, holding children to a higher standard, and giving them the necessary tools.

I am glad that I had an amendment that will be in the manager's amendment that deals with requiring the Secretary to report issues regarding the age, race, and gender at charter schools, and also, the attrition and college acceptance. It has that same requirement for the teachers, as far as teacher attrition. That is important. That is already in the manager's amendment.

I also think more transparency and information to the parents on the Web sites concerning orientation materials, enrollment curriculum, student discipline, and behavior codes adds to this legislation. In that, we can ensure that there will be policies to prevent any bullying or even to have bullying intervention so that our children can have a better quality of life.

This is a holistic approach to educating our children. I believe the underlying bill speaks volumes that our children are our most precious resource. I hope that, as we continue, we will be able to work on other items, such as unemployment insurance and comprehensive immigration reform, because these are ways that we show America that we are working for them.

When we put forward legislation that focuses on the education of our children and the choices that our children can make, balanced alongside of ensuring the lifting of the boats of public education, we are in the right direction.

I am delighted to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak during the House's consideration of the Rule for H.R. 10, the ``Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act.''

The Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act would revise the Charter School Program and the Public Charter Schools of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

The rule before the House will pave the way for the consideration of a legislative proposal that consolidates two existing federal charter school programs into one:

The Charter School Program, which supports grants for charter school developers to open new charter schools. The program also provides funds to disseminate best practices and provide state facilities aid to charter schools.

The Charter School Credit Enhancement Program assists charter schools in accessing better credit terms to acquire and renovate facilities to operate a charter school.

The rule will allow the consideration of the bill that will create a new federal charter schools program to promote high-quality charter schools at the state and local level; and allows states to use federal funds to start new charter schools as well as expand and replicate existing high-quality charter schools.

The bill adds a new component--a Charter Management Organization grant program to support the opening of additional charter schools nationwide.

H.R. 10 establishes a new Charter School Program that would consist of three parts:

Grants to support high-quality charter schools will be awarded to a State Educational Agency, the State Charter School Board, the Governor, or a Charter School Support Organization.

Facilities Aid will be awarded to continue credit enhancement activities and support state facilities aid for charter schools.

National Activities will allow the secretary of education to operate a grant competition for charter schools in states that did not win or compete for a state grant and a competition for high quality CMOs.

The legislation adds five new definitions: a ``charter management organization, a charter support organization'', a ``high-quality charter school''; the ``expansion of a high-quality charter school''; and a ``replicable, high-quality charter school model.''

H.R. 10 authorizes $300,000,000 for fiscal years 2015 through 2020. The bill permits state-determined weighted lotteries and allows students to continue in the school program of their choice by clarifying students in affiliated charter schools can attend the next immediate grade in that network's school.

Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 10

I have long supported the need for better data on the experiences of children that Congress could use when deliberating on legislative measures intended to benefit our youngest citizens.

The Education and Workforce Committee included language in the amendment in the form of a substitute for the bill that reflected an amendment I had intended to offer as a separate amendment. The language reflects the intent of my amendment by adding rates of student attrition as a measure to be considered by charter school authorizers in monitoring the successes of schools.

Attrition data would help us better understand the impact of charter schools on student retention. It would also bring additional transparency regarding the drivers of attrition issues such as discipline, counseling, drop-outs, bullying, as well as the impact of learning disabilities like dyslexia on student retention.

Although the data reporting is not mandatory, it is my hope that charter school districts and charter schools will take up the challenge of providing hard data to make the case for their approaches to education.

I offered two amendments for consideration by the House Rules Committee that would strengthen the legislative goals of H.R. 10.

The amendments were simple and were an important addition to this strong bipartisan effort from the Education and Workforce Committee to bring clarity and improve transparency of charter schools in communities around the Nation.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1

The Jackson Lee amendment made in order by the Rules Committee for debate of this bill directs State Education Agencies that award Federally funded grants to charter schools to work with those schools so that they provide information on their websites regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, and extra-curricular activities.

This Amendment will make it possible for parents to learn more about how schools deal with important education issues such as academic performance, enrichment programs, and quality of education life issues like reasonable accommodations for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia or physical disabilities.

Many charter schools already provide this information, and the amendment would support this good transparency practice. This Jackson Lee amendment is good for parents and for charter schools because parents would have access to information that helps them make education decisions for their children; and charter schools would speak to a larger audience regarding their education programs.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2

The second Jackson Lee amendment was a ``Sense of the Congress'' on the promotion of, and support for anti-bullying programs in charter schools, including those serving rural communities.

I regret that this amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee because the prevention of bullying is one of the most challenging problems focusing school officials.

I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order for consideration under this bill.

I introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013 because of the unresolved national epidemic of school bullying. This anti-bullying bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by expanding the juvenile accountability block grant program with respect to programs for the prevention of bullying to include intervention programs. The bill's objective is to reduce and prevent bullying and establish best practices for all activities that are likely to help reduce bullying among young people.

This year a million children will be teased, taunted, and physically assaulted by their peers. Bullying is the most common form of violence faced by our Nation's youth.

The frequency and intensity of bullying that young people face are astounding: 1 in 7 students in grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying; 90% of 4th to 8th grade students report being victims of bullying of some type, 56% of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school; 71% of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school; 15% of all students who don't show up for school report it to being out of fear of being bullied while at school; 1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school; 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month.

Consequences of bullying: 15% of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school; According to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying; Suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic.

Statistics on Gun Violence: Homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old; Homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between ages 10 and 24; Thirteen young people from ages 10-24 become victims of homicide every day; 82.8% of those youths were killed with a firearm; Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun; Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm; In 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns; One of four high school males reportedly carry a weapon to school, with 8.6% of reportedly carry a gun; 87% of youth said shootings are motivated by a desire to ``get back at those who have hurt them,'' and 86% said, ``other kids picking on them, making fun of them or bullying them'' causes teenagers to turn to lethal violence in the schools; In 2011, over 707,000 young people, aged 10 to 24 years, had to be rushed to the emergency room as a result of physical assault injuries.

I strongly believe that where our children are concerned, Congress is in a unique position to advocate on their behalf in an effective and forceful way. Letting children know by our actions that members of Congress consider the lives of children and their experience to be of the utmost importance would help them in countless ways.

We cannot gamble with our children's future, and ultimately the future of our nation. I am committed to finding ways to make sure that education is as valued as national defense--because education is crucial to our nation's global success in all areas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Foxx