Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any additional speakers.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield a minute and 15 seconds to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. POLIS. I thought, perhaps, they had been holding their tongues all along, wanting to speak after ours. Very well then. I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am grateful that this rule does include several of the amendments that I have had the opportunity to work on. One is a bipartisan amendment with my colleagues Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Whitfield, with regard to Rocky Flats in my district, which will help increase transparency to ensure that cold war nuclear workers will have their benefit applications reviewed expeditiously. There are many survivors in my district who have been exposed to radiation and who are suffering from severe health effects. If they had been on the military side, they would have been taken care of. They are on the civilian side, but have put their lives in harm's way, and they deserve to be taken care of for their service to our country. I am also pleased with my amendment with Mr. Blumenauer, which would defund the midlife nuclear refueling and overhaul of the George Washington aircraft carrier, which would save $5 billion. The administration released a statement of administrative policy, expressing concern about this unneeded reoverhaul of an aircraft carrier that we do not need as we shrink our carrier fleet permanently to 10 vessels. Finally, I am pleased with my amendment with Representative Nadler, which is to encourage the Department of Defense to ensure that our ground-based missile defense systems actually work and that there are operational, realistic tests before additional purchases are made of systems that do not keep Americans safe. This will also be permitted on the floor of the House today. However, 131 ideas--good, bad, and other--from my colleagues on both side of the aisle are not even allowed to be debated or voted on under this bill. The single biggest issue, the pressing national issue of the ongoing war in which this Nation is engaged is not even able to have 10 minutes or 1 minute of floor debate, as it has that very same issue, the ongoing presence in Afghanistan. And I have my opinions; my colleague, Mr. McGovern, has his; and folks on the other side and both sides of the aisle have theirs. This is not a partisan issue. It is simply one that we as representatives of the American people deserve to be able to be their voice on: How long and in what capacity should we continue to send American men and women to Afghanistan? The only way that we can ensure that this body is allowed to have their voice--Democrats, Republicans, people who want us to stay there, people who don't--is to bring down this rule and to bring forward a rule that allows a debate of the single most significant pressing national policy issue. In addition, there are a number of amendments around military preparedness and making sure our military has the very best and brightest aspiring Americans to draw from to keep our country safe that is not even allowed to be discussed under the rules of the bill. And finally, the USA FREEDOM Act, which is no longer the USA FREEDOM Act but a bill that has a loophole as wide as the Grand Canyon that was not in the original USA FREEDOM Act, passed on a bipartisan basis on a voice vote out of committee, and yet 20 amendments--again, good, bad, indifferent, some of which would have addressed the flaws--not even allowed 10 minutes, not allowed 1 minute, not allowed 30 seconds, not allowed 10 seconds, not allowed a vote. Why are we scared of letting the Members of this body, Republican and Democrat, have a voice in addressing the very legitimate privacy concerns about the NSA? If people think this bill will somehow address the concerns and they are gone, they are wrong. I plan on voting against this stripped version, which is no longer the USA FREEDOM Act, to show that it no longer even comes remotely close to addressing the concerns that my constituents have about the NSA overreach with regard to their privacy. We need to reject this rule to ensure that this body, representatives of the American people, Republican and Democratic, can bring forward the issues that pertain to national defense and our privacy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. POLIS. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not even allow a discussion of the war that we are currently engaged in in Afghanistan. How can we have a discussion about our national defense when being prohibited from any amendments relating to the war in Afghanistan? Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that this House reject this rule because it is impossible to have a discussion about meeting our national security needs and defense without this body's being able to issue any guidance or to even debate the ongoing war in which this Nation is engaged in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, as Ms. Lofgren said, the bill under consideration is not the bill that passed committee. It is a different bill that was changed 24 hours ago in secret, behind closed doors. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree completely with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). How can we possibly be having a meaningful debate about our national defense policy when we are not even allowed to have a vote or a debate on the war that this country happens to be engaged in at this given time? It is a pretense for a discussion that while still important is omitting the single largest public policy issue that our constituents are interested in and that men and women are putting their lives at risk for related to defense. There were 131 germane amendments, including the amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones, relating to the war in Afghanistan, and 130 others that are rejected under this rule--not even allowed a minute of discussion on the floor, no less a vote. What would it take to allow a full discussion of those issues? Well, 131 amendments, and customarily, even if we gave each 10 minutes, that is just 2 or 3 days of legislative time about our entire national defense policy. Isn't that what we owe this country as our Nation's deliberative body here, as Representatives of the United States Congress, to discuss for 2 or 3 days all the issues that Members on both sides of the aisle have brought forward relating to defense? I am including, first and foremost, the obvious issue of the war that we are currently engaged in and the demands from our constituents that whatever side prevails in that vote--and in the past, I have joined my colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones, on that issue--at least we should be able to debate and discuss whether an ongoing American presence in Afghanistan is in our national security interests. The process under which these bills have come to the floor prevents open dialogue and debate, and, frankly, continues to undermine the reputation of this body, the United States Congress, as a deliberative and representative body. One need not wonder why congressional approval ratings are so low. Here we are having a debate for a day on national defense, and we are prohibited from debating and voting on the single largest issue relating to national defense. In addition, this bill brings up a very weakened form of the USA FREEDOM Act. Not only was this bill weakened in the Judiciary Committee, but, in addition, it was weakened just 24 hours ago before the Rules Committee. Nonetheless, Members from both sides of the aisle submitted amendments to improve the bill, but, unfortunately, every single one of those 20 amendments are blocked under this rule. So we block 131 amendments by Members on both sides of the aisle from debate and from a vote, and we blocked 20 amendments for Members on both sides of the aisle with regard to the USA FREEDOM Act. Look, this underlying rule also blocked amendments relating to military preparedness. It blocked a widely popular amendment that I think would have more than enough votes on the floor of the House, according to its chief sponsor, Mr. Denham, that would allow our aspiring Americans to enlist in the military to ensure that we have the very best and most capable aspiring men and women to defend our country. Absent that amendment, the military will have to essentially go to the next best person on their list, have a harder time meeting their recruitment goals, and have to accept something less than the very best to defend our country and protect our national security. The majority blocked this important bipartisan amendment that would allow aspiring Americans who seek to serve our country and know no other country and owe no other allegiance to any other country to earn their legal status through military service. The majority also blocked an amendment by Mr. Castro that would have allowed aspiring Americans who are DACA-qualified to become eligible to attend, train, and serve at U.S. service academies. I have had the deep honor of having been appointed by then-Speaker and now-leader Pelosi to serve on the board of governors along with my colleague, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, of the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Members from across the country undergo--like we do in our office--a selection process where we interview the very best and brightest young men and women from across our districts for appointment to that academy, and one of the greatest honors I have as a Representative is being able to make the phone calls to the talented young individuals that our panelists have chosen to say, yes, we are providing you an appointment to one of our officer universities, and you will be able to serve as an officer in the United States military, one of the U.S. service academies. However, again, as a result of the failure of this rule to allow for even a debate or a vote on the Castro amendment, once again, our military academies are being forced to accept the next best, the less prepared student, rather than the most prepared and the very best officer that we need in today's and tomorrow's military to keep our Nation's national security interests safe. Both the Denham and Castro amendments would strengthen our service morale, our national defense, and our military preparedness. And those are an example of the 131 amendments to this bill that are blocked from discussion or votes under this restrictive rule. In addition, this rule makes in order H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act. Now, this bill was supposed to rein in the NSA's illegal and far- reaching wiretapping programs. Though I have never in my time here supported the PATRIOT Act, even many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have believe that the interpretation of that act was overly broad, and therefore, it is desirable for Congress to assert itself on behalf of the American people and rein in some of the worst excesses. But I am dismayed to find that the final text on the floor was not only weakened in the committee process but was weakened just 24 hours ago behind closed doors with less than just about 24 hours for Members of this body to even read the new version of the weakened USA FREEDOM Act. Mr. Speaker, last year's revelations that the NSA had been collecting detailed information about our communication patterns have undermined the trust that my constituents and Americans across the country have in our government. It has created conflicts with our allies abroad, threatening jobs in our country by sullying the reputation of American companies and rifling our international trade waters. The NSA collection of metadata is a clear violation of our constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and it simply can't continue. Now, while I am pleased that the Chamber is finally taking up legislation that is aimed at reining in the NSA's activities, however, while this bill does take baby steps towards restoring some of Americans' freedoms that are so inherently part of our constitutional system, I am very disappointed that it doesn't require the government to fully meet the standard, nor does it resolve this issue in any way, shape, or form to the American people. The USA FREEDOM Act curtails the NSA's ability to monitor Americans' private communications under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. And the legislative intent is clear: to prohibit the collection of bulk data such as the type that was occurring under the secret program revealed by Edward Snowden. However, the language in the bill falls short of accomplishing that, and none of the amendments that were designed to improve this bill and make it work to secure our privacy rights were even allowed to be discussed under this rule here on the floor of the House, which is another reason that this rule simply must be brought down. This legislation amended the definition of ``specific selection term,'' which is required to conduct surveillance under FISA in a way that creates the possibility that the NSA could misuse the bill. Now, again, a secret government agency that we have acknowledged has had oversight problems in the past, having overly broad discretion, has shown and demonstrated that it has been unable to provide the proper oversight. So the bill's new definition of ``specific selection term'' can be read to create a loophole permitting intelligence agencies to use selection terms that could permit the collection of large segments of data associated with the particular email domain or IP address. The American people have seen how broadly in the past the intelligence community has interpreted their authority under surveillance law. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The new definitions provided in the underlying bill provide a potential loophole almost as wide as the initial loophole in the PATRIOT bill itself and fails to address the privacy concerns of the American people. In addition, the new language eliminated provisions that strengthened and clarified the ban on reverse targeting in 702 and the minimization provisions for both the 215-based CDR program and the FISA pen register statute. The language is a major departure from the bill that passed out of two committees. So you might hear Members on both sides of the aisle say, oh, the bill passed by voice on committee. To be clear, this is not the bill that passed in committee. This bill was changed 24 hours ago and severely weakened. Were the proponents of these changes hesitant to bring these changes forward in committee because they knew they would engender bipartisan opposition? Perhaps. But let it not be said without refutation that these bills have passed committee by a voice vote unanimously. The bill has changed significantly since it passed committee. Again, while I am encouraged that this Congress is finally taking up a bill designed with the intent of reining in the excesses of the NSA, this process is flawed. Twenty amendments were offered; none are allowed under this rule. If we can defeat this rule, Members from both sides of the aisle will be able to move forward to improve upon the USA FREEDOM Act to ensure that it can be examined and that Congress can engage in their proper oversight role with regard to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for bringing forward this amendment. This amendment represents a best practice for charter schools. It is an important upgrade to our Federal authorization program to ensure that charter schools work to improve communities, disseminate best practices to public charter schools, and partner with businesses and with nonprofits in the community to improve the neighborhoods. A great school can truly help transform a community. Community involvement is the key to a public charter school having the maximum positive impact on the community. Parents are important partners for a child's education, and one of the great things that well-functioning, high-quality public charter schools do is involve parents. By incorporating this best practice into the Federal authorizing statute, we encourage States and districts to go even further, to ensure that parents and the broader community are involved in working with the public charter school as a component of transforming the neighborhood. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady for working on this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, public school choice is only as good as informational options are placed before parents. Too often, only the already enfranchised parents have the ability to choose a school that works for their kids. What this amendment ensures is that all parents are able to find publicly available information, consistent with State law, about the quality of public school options in their areas, in order to help make better informed decisions in the education marketplace. For public education to work and for competition to have a constructive impact on public education, parents and families need to be able to make informed decisions. This amendment is an important step towards helping families have the information they need to make public school choice work, to make sure that public charter schools that offer the transformational opportunity to help kids succeed have the information placed in the hands of the most at-risk families, as well as of the families who are already enfranchised through active parents. I strongly support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to include it in the bill.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Messer amendment, which encourages States to support the opening or replication of charter schools that are secondary schools. The area that this impacts and improves in the bill is one of the most important policy changes over the previous authorizing program. Under the current Federal Charter Schools Program, only new schools can be funded and participate in this program. What we allow under this bill is the replication and expansion of models that we know work. For instance, if there is a K-8 school that wants to expand into high school or there is a school that wants to growth from 400 to 600 students, if we have the evidence-based information that shows that that school is transforming lives and helping kids achieve, we want to ensure that we can have the maximum possible impact with our limited Federal dollars. What this amendment does is it ensures that States as part of their plan allow for the replication and expansion of public charter schools. I want to thank my colleague from Indiana for recognizing the importance of charter schools in serving high school students and the opportunity that these models have to provide a flexible educational environment for older students to prepare them for college and careers. The charter school models that are allowed give schools the flexibility they need to meet the needs of the students, whether it is longer hours, longer school years, additional support service, or daycare vouchers for pregnant or young mother teens. This flexibility can be critical to helping students succeed at the secondary level. This amendment improves the bill and makes sure that States encourage the opening, replication, and expansion of public charter high schools. Having founded two public charter high schools myself before I served in the United States Congress, I can personally give testimony to the transformational impact that it has on young people every day. In many cases, young people that would otherwise be dropouts or not even in the public education system are able to have a specific educational product that is tailored around their real world needs. There is a charter school for pregnant teens in Montrose, Colorado. Whether it is a vocational or work focus school that gives kids the skills they need to compete in the workforce, the Messer amendment is a step forward in building upon the language which is already an improvement over the existing authorization, and brings it to a better place that we can all be proud of, Democrats and Republicans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, in this week of partisan divisions here on the floor of the House of Representatives, we have a unique opportunity in this amendment, in this bill, to come together around supporting public charter schools. This week, Mr. Chairman, is Public Charter Schools Week. What better way to celebrate than to upgrade the Federal Charter Schools Program with language that Democrats, Republicans, and all important stakeholders can agree on. Truly, all stakeholders are part of this discussion. Authorizers, including districts and States and special districts, public charter schools themselves, teachers unions, teachers, were all at the table to ensure that we can create a program that builds upon the successes of the two decades of the public charter school movement and will allow it to reach even greater heights in the next decade. On behalf of Ranking Member Miller and myself, we are proud to support the Messer amendment. We are also proud to support the underlying bill. By ensuring that States that apply for this program explain how they will work with applicants to encourage replication and expansion at the secondary level, we can ensure that the needs of all students are better met. Particularly, in many areas of our country we have high schools that are persistently failing, with dropout rates of 50 percent year after year, where half the kids coming in the door in ninth grade don't leave in 12th. Through upgrading with better opportunities for parents to choose, we can turn it around and make sure that kids have the opportunity to graduate and have a good job in an economy in the 21st century that increasingly relies on both a high school education and a college education. I rise in support of this amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for their work, and Representative Bass for her leadership in working with youth and foster care, and homeless youth in particular, on this bill. Before I came to Congress I founded a charter school with the focus of serving homeless youth and youth in transitional housing called the Academy of Urban Learning in Denver. Not every area, not every city, not every county might have a charter school with a particular focus of working with kids that are in transitional housing, so it is incumbent upon us to ensure that all public charter schools that are supported under this bill ensure that they don't have barriers for foster youth or barriers for youth in transitional housing. There are a lot of particular needs around kids that are going through turmoil in their home life, whether it is at the elementary level or whether it is at the high school level. By adding the language Representative Bass introduced in her bipartisan amendment, we can ensure that any participant in the Federal charter school program doesn't have any barriers to enrolling kids. This week here on the floor of the House has been characterized by partisan rancor around Benghazi and Lois Lerner. How wonderful that Democrats and Republicans can come together not only around this amendment by Karen Bass, but also around the bill itself. The upgrade of the Federal Charter Schools Program to the 2.0 version takes into account the learning of the last 15 years to ensure that our very limited Federal footprint and investment has the maximum possible impact on increasing student achievement and increasing transparency and accountability for public charter schools. I thank Representative Bass for offering her amendment, which I am proud to support.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. 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. POLIS. 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.

Mr. POLIS. 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.