Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we and my colleagues on the Rules Committee have tried to make this process work. We tried to propose a bipartisan way of paying for these efforts, we tried to propose a balanced way for this committee to go about its business. But at every turn we were shot down. That is why I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care about honoring those who lost their lives, who care about getting to the bottom of the events, join me in opposing this rule and defeating the previous question so that we may begin a process that has the confidence of the American people rather than just speaks to one partisan base or the other. The American people deserve this institution acting at its best with regard to this matter, Democrats and Republicans acting in concert, both enjoying the power of subpoena, the ability to schedule witnesses, equal resources on the committee, so we can have a full, objective, and hopefully unanimous account of the events. That should be the goal of the legislation. Under this rule, we are not even allowed to discuss our proposals to ensure equal representation on this committee. We are not allowed to discuss our proposal to pay for the proceedings under this bill with a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with more than two-thirds. This is a closed process that, frankly, Mr. Speaker, risks losing the faith of the American people in the outcome of this process. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the outcome of this process, if it moves forward, will fall on deaf ears of the American people because they will know that there was not an institutional commitment to being objective, there was not an effort to reach out in a bipartisan manner to find the truth, there was not a bipartisan effort to even pay for the costs of this investigation or this bill or contain or estimate those costs in any way. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can get this process right. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As we have seen time and time again, sadly the Republicans are taking an unspeakable tragedy--the death of four brave American citizens--and turning it into a partisan talking to the point of selling membership to become Benghazi investigators on a partisan Web site rather than engaging in a bipartisan process to get to the root of the matter. The families of those who died deserve more than that. They deserve that Democrats and Republicans work together rather than use their pain for political or financial gain for either party. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order our amendment to ensure that the select committee has a chance to succeed where four previous House investigations have not to ensure that we have a full, accurate, and objective accounting for the American people of the events in Benghazi. By ensuring equal representation, equal resources, and equal say over the use of subpoenas and depositions, we can fulfill our obligations to our Nation and to our institution to ensure that we get to the bottom of this matter for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers on his side.

Mr. POLIS. Then I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) just talked about how we have proposed that this be a balanced committee like the Ethics Committee. That was done with regard to another special committee, in fact, the bill that was sponsored by current Speaker, then-minority leader, John Boehner in the 110th Congress. They set up a special committee with regard to voting irregularities. They had an equal balance between Democrats and Republicans to remove any taint of partisanship from the proceedings. That would be a welcomed change, but again, that was not even allowed to be discussed under this rule. Another language of concern in the underlying bill which we tried to address in the Rules Committee but unfortunately were voted down is that this bill allows for such funds that are needed to be appropriated for this purpose. We were not even presented with any cost estimates for this committee. On the committee, it was noted that Kenneth Starr's investigation of then-President Clinton cost in excess of $80 million. We simply don't know if this is a $1 million, a $10 million, a $50 million, or a $200 million endeavor; nor were we allowed to even allow for a vote our very simple bipartisan proposal to pay for this bill, which would have been to allow a vote on H.R. 15. H.R. 15, which is a bill that has bipartisan support, has already passed the Senate by more than two-thirds, would pass as a pay-for if brought to the floor of the House, actually generates over $200 billion. Even if this select committee were to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if we were able to include immigration reform as a way of paying for it, it would still reduce the deficit by $199 billion or more. We weren't even allowed an up-or-down vote on that topic. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I offered to support the establishment of the select committee if we could establish immigration reform as the way of paying for this. Unfortunately, despite support from both sides of the aisle in committee, we were, nevertheless, voted down. I want to be clear that the issue of immigration reform will not go away. We will continue to offer it as a way of paying for various bills. I hope that a discussion is allowed about how to pay for this committee, and that is why I oppose the rule.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for the kind words. I want to thank Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for their hard work. Particularly in a week where this body has been divided over issues like Benghazi and Lois Lerner, how wonderful that we can come together around our most underserved kids and families to help extend the hope and opportunity of a quality charter school to more families. Most Members of this House have already voted for the provisions of this bill. Substantially, a nearly identical bill was included in the Republican ESEA reauthorization, H.R. 5. All but 12 Republicans voted for that bill. Almost identical language was included in the Democratic substitute for ESEA reauthorization as well. Only two Democrats voted against that bill. The vast majority, everybody in this body, except for 14 people in this session, this 113th Congress, have voted for the provisions of this bill. Those bills, the Democrat substitute and ESEA reauthorization, have an enormous gap between where they were. Democrats and Republicans had a different vision for accountability, the role of the Federal Government, so many issues within that. So why not take language that is nearly identical in both of those bills with regard to reauthorization of the Federal Charter Schools Program and combine it into a standalone bill that can actually pass this body and pass the Senate. We have done enough of these one-party bills. I know when we were in the majority we did them as well, where the House acts, and we yell at the Senate for not acting; they act, and they yell at us for not acting. Here is a bill, Mr. Chairman, that, with a strong vote on the floor of the House, can send a message to the Senate that while perhaps we cannot agree on the entirety of ESEA reauthorization, yes, we can agree on upgrading the Federal Charter Schools Program first conceived in 1994 to the 2.0 version. What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? What do these improvements in this bill mean? They are commonsense improvements. They are neither Republican nor Democratic. They simply make the bill better to make sure that our very limited Federal investment that we have, the limited resources we have, is spent and invested in a way to have the maximum possible outcome in ensuring that kids across the country have access to a quality public charter school. For instance, rather than just supporting the formation of entirely new charter schools that are innovative, under this bill we now allow the funds to be used for expansion and replication of successful models, models that we know work, schools that we know work, schools that are transforming lives and restoring hope to families across our country if only they can expand, if only we can have more to serve kids. We have also heard from our constituents across the country complaints that some charter schools perhaps don't serve enough special ed students or enough English language learners or enough free and reduced lunch students. Under the old language of this authorization that we still have, charter schools that receive these funds are actually prevented from remedying that. They are not allowed to have anything other than a pure lottery with regard to determining their student composition. What we now allow with this bill is a weighted lottery to give charter schools, in concert with their authorizing entity, the ability to make sure that they can serve the most at-risk kids, pursuant to their mission; they can serve special-needs kids, commensurate with the district averages; they can serve English language learners, and make sure that they can fulfill their mission, rather than have some of those students squeezed out by those who are in a better position to exercise their school choice because they are better informed and better connected. The underlying bill improves charter school access and services for all students. It truly will help ensure that the limited Federal investment we have makes the biggest single difference for families across our country. Mr. Chairman, public charter schools are simply public schools with site-based governance. Public charter schools are free to innovate when it comes to scheduling the learning day, uniforms, staffing, curriculum, and yet they are accountable for student outcomes, and this bill adds additional layers of accountability and transparency to ensure that this Federal investment has the maximum possible effect. I am proud that before I served in this body, Mr. Chairman, I founded two public charter schools--New America School in Colorado, and now New Mexico, and the Academy of Urban Learning in Denver. New American School works with 16- to 21-year-old new immigrants to help them learn the English language and even how to access a college education. Mr. Chairman, absent a Federal charter school program I don't think I even could have started that charter school. Hundreds and thousands of charter schools that have benefited from this program across the country will tell you the same story.

Mr. POLIS. Before the State or district money for a public charter school begins, before the doors open, there are expenses. Principals and teachers have to be hired, classrooms have to be configured and outfitted. That is what this money allows. Coupled with strong support from the nonprofit sector and from foundations, we have helped give with this program life to the ideas that have existed in the minds of social entrepreneurs and that have been transformative in the lives of kids and families. However, Mr. Chairman, not all public charter schools are high quality, just as all district schools are not high quality. That is why H.R. 10 adds strong protections to ensure that public charter schools are accountable that they serve low-income kids and English language learners and at-risk kids. We invest in quality authorizing practices. What does that mean? Well, there are two possible thoughts in authorizing. An authorizing entity like a district can hand out charters. Too easy? Hand out them out like candy to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes in, including low quality providers who have no sense of how to put together a school budget. Or they can lack quality by never handing one out to anybody because they view them as competition with the district. But a quality authorizing practice is if you have a great idea and evidence that it will work, sound budgetary policy, and a team that will make a public school work for kids, you should be able to receive that charter and operate that school. We raised the bar on authorizing practices, something on which the original authorization for this program was silent. For those on my side of the aisle who are skeptical of public charter schools, this bill brings stronger protections for oversight, transparency, and accountability. This program, the Federal charter school program, will exist under the old authorization or the new authorization. I implore my colleagues on my side of the aisle to support the new and better 2.0 version for all of the Democratic priorities. Whether you like charter schools or not, this program is simply better under this bill. This bill has gotten better through every phase of the process--better than the bill in last Congress, better than the bill as part of the ESEA reauthorization of the Republican bill, better than the Democratic substitute. And now as a stand-alone bill, we have the ability to send a message to the Senate and a bill to President Obama's desk.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the gentleman from Massachusetts and appreciate his passion for his remarks. This process is closed. Look, we have something that shouldn't be a controversial bill, extending the R&D tax credit, helping make American companies more competitive; and it has a cost, $155 billion, so let's talk about how we pay for that cost, so we can provide the certainty that our companies need to hire more people and grow. We have an idea. I was proud to offer an amendment with Mr. Caardenas and Mr. Garcia. It had a bipartisan pay-for. It passed the Senate with more than two-thirds majority. We have a bipartisan bill, H.R. 15, in the House. We were able to use that to pay for this tax cut, over $200 billion. Not only does our proposal, immigration reform, fully pay for the R&D tax credit, but it also reduces our deficit by $50 billion, and guess what, we were denied a vote on our amendment. There weren't even any ideas from the other side about how to pay for it. If they voted it down, they voted it, but let's have a discussion. If you don't like our way of paying for it, find another. No Member of this House is even allowed to propose a way of paying for things under this rule. It is a guaranteed recipe for Republican tax-and-spend deficit policies.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow for the consideration of the Caardenas amendment.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Would it be in order to introduce an amendment to allow for an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 15 as part of the budget?

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, is it correct that the concurrent resolution on the budget fails to assume enactment of H.R. 15, immigration reform and, in doing so, squanders the opportunity to reduce taxes that Mr. Sessions just talked about to the tune of $900 billion?

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, is it true that, unlike the concurrent resolution on the budget, which slashes the transportation budget by $52 billion this year alone, and, according to the Economic Policy Institute, decreases GDP by 2.5 percent, H.R. 15, the House's comprehensive immigration reform bill, would create 120,000 jobs, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office?

Mr. POLIS. How many cosponsors does H.R. 15 currently have?

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, is it correct that Representative Caardenas' amendment, which made the necessary changes in the budget to accommodate passage of H.R. 15, the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which lowers our deficits and secures our borders and establishes clear and just rules for citizenship, was not made in order under H. Res. 554?

Mr. POLIS. Further parliamentary inquiry. How many of those cosponsors are Republican Members of the House of Representatives?