Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Kristin Donley, an outstanding educator at Monarch High School. She has pioneered innovative learning for the past 10 years teaching physical science, chemistry and biology. Ms. Donley is an inspiration and an exemplary educator, and I am honored to commend her for being named the 2012 Colorado Teacher of the Year. Her multifaceted approach to teaching goes beyond the textbooks and the standardized tests to instill curiosity and inspiration in her students; it provides the building blocks for a well-rounded understanding of the sciences. She has provided many opportunities for her students outside the classroom that truly prepare them with the skills and knowledge necessary to compete and succeed. Her partnership with the University of Colorado Boulder allowed her students to spend a week at the CU Mountain Research Station in Nederland, Colorado, where they had the opportunity to do hands-on learning of cutting-edge research that directly led to their own research and the chance to compete competitively in the regional science fair. She has expanded the number of opportunities for her students to become passionate learners by establishing and coordinating a district science research seminar to have a peer science mentorship program for elementary and middle school students. She works with her students to create interest in learning science and to provide them with the tools for success. Her faith in the public school system and her advocacy for innovative, cutting-edge learning is especially important now, at a time when improving our schools and expanding access to innovative science, technology, engineering and mathematics instruction is critical. Ms. Donley was born in Boulder and received both her undergraduate and graduate degrees in molecular, cellular and developmental biology at the University of Colorado. She is truly a dedicated community member and educator, and I am honored to recognize her as the 2012 Colorado Teacher of the Year.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to recognize the 150th birthday of Weld County, Colorado. Weld is the sunny, rolling home to 31 towns filled with Coloradans of all backgrounds and aspirations. In 1821, Major Stephen H. Long made an expedition to the area now known as Weld County and declared the land was not fit for human prosperity. Almost two centuries later it is without question that Major Long did not have the vision or the admiration for this great place as those of Weld County have today. Located in the north central part of Colorado, Weld County provides an impressive supply of opportunity and industrial support being the State's leader in production of cattle, grain, and sugar beets and the second leader in production of oil and gas. It is ranked as the third leading agricultural area in the United States. But it is not the natural resources or the environmental make up of Weld County that make it what it is today, on its 150th birthday. It is the people of this county that have taken it from a prairie region first settled by railroad workers, to a vibrant and growing home to thousands of Colorado families. Beyond its industrial value, one of the State's strongest public universities, the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, is located within Weld County and provides thousands of students the opportunity for higher education and a more fertile future every year. I congratulate the people of Weld County on 150 years of progress and prosperity and eagerly anticipate what the future holds for this forward-looking Colorado County.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, again I express appreciation to both majority and minority leaders for expedited action in trying to get to the President's desk these two important measures. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I would like to express my appreciation to the leadership of the House for expediting these two important bills and bringing them before the House of Representatives. I rise in support of the underlying bills, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act and Access to Capital for Job Creators Act. Now, while I support the two bills before us, I do wish the rule was an open one. I will be voting against the rule. An open rule would allow the House to work its will in a true democratic process, allowing Members to come down to the floor and freely debate these bills. Unfortunately, in the Rules Committee, we were offered only a structured rule. Now, both of these bills accomplish something very important in terms of opening up capital markets and helping startups work. Let me discuss briefly how this whole accredited investor concept works. To be an accredited investor, you simply need to be worth $1 million or have income of $200,000 a year. Now, that's a very rarified strata of the American people. What does that mean when you're an accredited investor? It means that you can participate in a private equity offering that doesn't need to go through the full SEC process which is cumbersome and costs a lot of money. So, in effect, many venture capital opportunities, funding opportunities for startup companies, are reserved for those who are only worth above a million dollars. They say the easiest way to make a million dollars is to already be worth a million dollars. In fact, people worth more than a million dollars have heretofore had a monopoly on participating in these kinds of opportunities. Now, what can an average American family, let's say with a net worth of $50,000 or $100,000 do? Well, they can go to Las Vegas and they can bet it all on number 9. They can buy gold, which is being pushed by all these profit organizations, and I think we need a congressional investigation into that. Many of these organizations selling gold sell it for above market value by preying on unsuspecting people who are not accredited investors. They might be worth $50,000 or $100,000. What you find, by the way, is that this whole concept of tying an accredited investor to net worth has its flaws. Just because somebody has several million dollars doesn't mean they're a sophisticated investor. Meanwhile, there could be somebody who's worth $10,000 who is very sophisticated. It's unfortunate that we have the whole system tied to that. But what we see before us today are two important chinks in this armor. One is consistent with the current concept of accredited investor but at least opens it up beyond their personal networks, and the other one allows small investors to participate in a more meaningful way. First, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, crowdfunding. What this means is it provides a new way that companies, startup companies, can raise a limited amount of money, $1 million a year, or $2 million if they have audited financial statements. Now, that's a sizable amount for a company to get off the ground and get started. Many tech companies that you hear of today started with that much money or less. Historically, how did they raise that money? They would go to a venture capitalist. They would go to a wealthy individual. We call that person an angel investor. They'd get a check for $500,000. The investors had to be worth more than a million dollars. Your average American might be worth--might only have $5,000 to invest or $1,000 to invest, was unable to, under law, participate in that offering. What this does is it opens up an avenue that allows the individual investor to invest up to $10,000 in a startup company. Now, that's a risky investment. They could lose that $5,000. They could lose that $2,000. But you know what? They could go to Las Vegas and they could lose it a lot quicker with a lot less upside. So this gives every American the opportunity to invest in startup companies, if one of their friends is starting one, if there is some concept they are excited about, and reap the rewards as well. In addition to feeling part of something special, some of these investments, the vast minority, could return 50:1, 100:1 and could help those people acquire wealth, and that's very, very exciting. The Access to Capital for Job Creators Act also deals with a flaw in how private equity is raised. Currently, you have to know the right people to get into a private equity deal. In fact, a company that's offering private equity is not even allowed to, under SEC regulation, post a prospectus and information on their Web site in an open environment. What this bill does is it creates a safe harbor that allows them not to advertise it in the sense of loudly promoting it and trying to sell shares, but in a sense of simply providing it in a nonpassword-protected way on their Web site to allow people who aren't part of their personal network of elite friends to participate in that private equity offering as well. The average median household net worth in this country is about $100,000. And previously, all of these investment opportunities have been reserved for people worth over a million dollars. Now, if somebody's family, an American family watching this, or one of my constituents is worth $100,000 or $150,000 or $50,000, it may not make all the sense in the world to invest $5,000 or $10,000 in one startup, but a cap of $10,000 is a reasonable amount. It's their money and their right to do that if that's what they want to do. These bills are consistent with that. And, more importantly, they provide a new financing mechanism for startups in this country. That way, a startup that has broad appeal and a broad network can go to 1,000 people that have $1,000 each rather than one wealthy investor for $1 million. That was previously nearly impossible under current law. Mr. Speaker, I have here a Statement of Administration Policy, and I'm proud to say that this bill, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, has strong support from the administration: ``This bill will make it easier for entrepreneurs to raise capital and create jobs, and the administration looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to craft legislation that facilitates capital formation.'' I would like to applaud the leadership of the President of the United States in strongly supporting these endeavors. As a former small business owner, I know how important it is to invest in a company's future and how critical resources are for growth. The more avenues that we can provide for financing startup companies or allowing a mom-and- pop company to expand, the better it is for the growth of our economy. More importantly, these two pieces of legislation before us demonstrate that Democrats and Republicans can work together. We can put aside our partisan differences, we can fast track a commonsense piece of legislation and work towards solutions to spur economic growth. Now, to be clear, these two bills alone don't do enough to turn our economy around. These measures do little to address what the American people are asking us for, creating jobs in the short term and getting the economy moving. Will they have a positive impact in creating jobs and allowing for financing to flow to new startup operations? Yes, but they are not fundamentally game changers. These bills will allow average Americans an opportunity to invest in early-stage companies. Now, many of these opportunities won't work out. American investors will lose their money. Other American investors will make money. But, again, it is a very American concept that it is your money to invest as you choose, and the best opportunities shouldn't be reserved for millionaires. We should make them widely available to all Americans. Democrats on the Financial Services Committee have also been extremely instrumental in improving these bills to protect business and investors. Democrats have added a critical provision requiring that issuers verify that an investor is actually eligible to purchase the offer in securities, and the change ensures there's a balance between the need to use restrictions on capital formation and protecting investors from fraud and making sure we don't get in the way of State regulation, as well. There is a fine line; and there are, as I mentioned, some areas where sham investments are being aggressively promoted that are certainly contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Likewise, there are real opportunities that until this bill becomes law those who are worth under $1 million are ineligible from participating in, and as a companion those who might be worth more than $1 million but don't know the right people are unable to participate in private equity offerings. This bill remedies both of those restrictions and will help unleash capital flows to startup corporations. I'm proud to support both bills. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, November 2, 2011. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2930--Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act (Rep. McHenry, R-North Carolina, and 5 cosponsors) The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 2930. In the President's September 8th Address to a Joint Session of Congress on jobs and the economy, he called for cutting away the red tape that prevents many rapidly growing startup companies from raising needed capital, including through a ``crowdfunding'' exemption from the requirement to register public securities offerings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This proposal, which would enable greater flexibility in soliciting relatively small equity investments, grew out of the President's Startup America initiative and has been endorsed by the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. H.R. 2930 is broadly consistent with the President's proposal. This bill will make it easier for entrepreneurs to raise capital and create jobs. The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with the Congress to craft legislation that facilitates capital formation and job growth and provides appropriate investor protections. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. POLIS. Very briefly, I yield myself 1 minute to respond before I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. To be clear, these bills have the potential to create jobs, but there will also be many investors that lose money as a result of these bills. Again, it's their money to lose. These bills are consistent with that. And obviously these bills, in addition to causing job growth in companies, will also cause misery to some people. But it is their money to lose, and it's probably better that they bet it on some startup than they invest it in gold or they take it to Vegas. So at least there's an opportunity to create jobs. Even if the company doesn't go anywhere, that's a job for a year. And it limits the loss to 10 percent of their income. So if somebody makes $80,000, they can only lose $8,000 a year under this. Hopefully that won't put them out of house and home. And it gives them the same opportunities to invest in startup companies that millionaires have had for years. It's a very egalitarian measure. It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. Again, I would like to point out that I will be opposing the previous question on the underlying issue. I don't necessarily agree with what some of my colleagues have said with regard to China, and I voted consistently with that in the last Congress and have in this Congress; but I do believe that the House should be able to work its will on this important matter to the American people and with regard to international relations. There are bigger fish to fry than giving millionaires more ways to lose their money, than giving middle class families more ways to lose money and giving working families access to more capital; but these are important steps forward for capitalism, for capital growth and capital formation, and to create the next generation of great American companies that will lift us from this recession and carry forward the torch of American progress across the world. I am honored to support both underlying bills and hope that they move to immediate passage in the Senate as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bills before us do something for people of all economic classes in the country--they help working families and the poor; they're good for the middle class; and they're good for millionaires. Let me talk about each group and how it helps. First, millionaires. It gives millionaires more ways to lose their money. Isn't that exciting? Previously, again, you not only had to be a millionaire, but you had to be a millionaire with the right connections to be networked to a company that's doing a private equity offering. Otherwise, you weren't allowed to find out about it. This will put all millionaires on an equal footing and will give them the opportunity to examine prospectuses on company sites, have them presented to them under the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act, allow them to squander their money on startups, and to, of course, occasionally reap a reward as they hope to do. Again, this money that's invested will then create jobs. It will help fund the companies and get them off the ground, giving millionaires many more ways to lose their money through investing in risky startup companies. What does this do for the middle class? Again, it gives the middle class more ways to risk their money and lose their money as well. Previously, with a middle class family, the average net worth in this country was about $100,000. They were unable to invest in a startup company. They were not accredited investors. They couldn't lose their money that way. They could go to Las Vegas. They could bet it all on number six. They could lose it all there. They could respond to a full- page ad in a paper and buy gold with all their money. That doesn't create any jobs. But no. They couldn't invest it in their neighbor's startup company. This bill remedies that. It limits their losses, and allows them to invest 10 percent of their income. If they make $80,000 a year, they can invest $8,000 in a risky startup company. Again, nine out of 10 of these are going to go out of business--they'll lose their money--and maybe one out of 10 will make a lot of money; but this allows middle class families the same opportunities that millionaires have always had to lose their money. What does it do for working families and the American poor? Access to capital. What if you have an idea? What if you don't have any net worth, but you have a great idea? You need to raise $100,000, $300,000--the proverbial ``better mousetrap.'' Do you know what? You might not know any fancy venture capitalists, and you might not know a lot of people with money. But do you know what this bill allows you to do? It allows you to put that idea up on the Internet and raise money from small investors across the country--legally. There is no legal way to do that until this bill passes. There is no legal way for somebody without access to capital to raise capital in small tranches without incurring SEC oversight and having to hire lots of lawyers. This effectively allows working American families to raise money for their ideas by crowdsourcing, or raising money over the Internet, from that newly enfranchised middle class that now has the ability to lose their money in new ways and from the millionaires, who have always been able to lose their money but only if they knew the right people. So these bills allow new avenues for growth capital for startup companies. Again, to be clear, most of these companies aren't going to work out. That's the nature of capitalism. Most of them are going to go out of business. They might employ three people for a year, and 2 years down the road, they'll be a footnote. But do you know what? Some of them are going to work out. We could see the next Google, the next Yahoo!, the next Microsoft. Many of these companies started as garage companies, funded by proverbial friends and family. The next great American success story can be funded by crowdsourcing. It can have thousands of investors from middle class families across the country, earning millions of dollars on their investments and limiting their losses to 10 percent of their incomes. I am proud to support these two bills and am appreciative of the majority and minority staffs for expediting their passage and improving them in committee and through the amendment process. It's time we get back to work for the American people. I again call on the Speaker and my Republican colleagues to put aside partisanship and give us more bills like these and more bills that can contribute to robust job growth and to do something for all American families regardless of their economic worth. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the previous question; and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the aforementioned amendment to the rule in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. I will inform the gentleman from Texas that one additional speaker has emerged. I would be honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. I believe we are on our last speaker. I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, here we are 43 weeks into the current Congress since the Republicans took control of the House, and yet we have failed to pass a single bill to create jobs. Fourteen million Americans without jobs, many millions more are underemployed, worried about where their next paycheck is coming from. And yet the majority has continued to block and ignore a number of job-creating proposals advanced by Democrats, including the American Jobs Act. I renew my call for Speaker Boehner to bring the American Jobs Act to the House floor and allow the House to work its will to create jobs for the American people. The majority party will respond that there are a number of bills, but just by calling a bill a jobs bill doesn't make it one, such as bills that would increase childhood asthma and make people of all ages more ill by preventing our EPA from enforcing its clean water standards. The Dirty Water Act, again, instead of creating jobs, the bill undermines the Clean Water Act. It's not a zero sum game. And by damaging our environment and making people sick, we're not creating jobs. I call upon the House of Representatives to pass jobs bills now.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Today I am pleased to see that Congress is finally focused on America's top priority, jobs. As economic experts from across the ideological spectrum have made clear, these trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea will create jobs for Americans. In fact, the White House has said these deals will create 70,000 new jobs for Americans at a time when we need them. That's why I intend to vote for all three agreements. I'm also going to vote ``yes'' because these trade pacts will help put money back in the pockets of hardworking Americans. By lifting the aggressive tariffs on many commonly purchased clothing and household items, we can cut the prices of essentials that every family needs. Tariffs are essentially like a sales tax on imported goods, and like sales taxes in many States, they're regressive. Most U.S. imports today come into this country duty free, but a small amount of items that many Americans use, like sneakers and clothing and other household items, come with a tariff that's much higher than many luxury items. For example, a pair of fancy Italian loafers has a tariff of only 8.5 percent, but a pair of affordable sneakers that moms and dads buy for their kids when they're heading back to school carry a tariff that increases their price by 50 percent. Thrifty cotton and polyester work shirts carry a 16 and 32 percent tariff, but a silk Armani shirt comes with only a 1 percent tariff. Not only are these regressive tariffs hard on the middle class, but they hurt American businesses. Many businesses in my district can expand their operations and hire more workers with these three trade agreements. For example, in my district alone, four businesses that export electronics, building materials, and foods pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in tariffs just to the Colombian Government. That translates into jobs in my district. Most importantly, as the gentleman from Michigan mentioned, as a new father, I think about the kind of world I want my son to grow up in. I want a world that reduces barriers between ideas, between people, and between the flow of goods and services so that we can fully embrace our brothers and sisters in Colombia, our brothers and sisters in South Korea, our brothers and sisters in Panama and, indeed, across the world to build a common greatness of humanity that manifests itself economically through the flow of goods and services, culturally, and of course to better establish the greatness of global culture. Congress should pass these three trade agreements. I'm proud to support all three of these job-creating free trade agreements. I compliment President Obama on his leadership for bringing these deals before us, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to create jobs in America.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Brenda Welburn as the Executive Director of the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). Throughout Brenda's outstanding career with NASBE, she dedicated herself to supporting not only state policymakers across the 50 states but, more importantly, students all across the country. Brenda spent many years at the helm of NASBE, serving as a critical resource for state policymakers elected and appointed to State Boards of Education. During my six years of service on the Colorado State Board, Brenda and NASBE were instrumental in supporting me and all of the board in our universally shared goal of improving public education. I will never forget how we worked together to implement the requirements of No Child Left Behind and to integrate its requirements with Colorado's education accountability systems. With Brenda's help, we managed to navigate school finance decisions while communicating the benefits of public school choice, such as online learning and charter schools, and connecting traditional K-12 programs with college and careers. Throughout her remarkable tenure at NASBE, Brenda has served as a steady and thoughtful leader, actively assisting state board members across the country. Her influence has been felt coast to coast, and because of her steadfast commitment to establishing and maintaining effective education policies, children across the country have been given a greater chance to succeed. Brenda, we will miss you, but we thank you for your dedicated service and congratulate you on your retirement.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we will be discussing two good bills. Both bills under this rule are bipartisan bills. One will support students across this Nation, give parents better choices, improve the quality of our charter schools in our country; and so, too, we will improve and enhance the intelligence gathering of our Nation that keeps us safe under the authorization bill. The Quality Charter Schools Act will improve our global economic standing by improving student access to quality and effective public charter schools. I find, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is necessary to help educate some of our colleagues on the definition of what charter schools are. Charter schools are established by school districts or other authorizers. They are public schools and have to accept all students equally. The concept of these schools is that they have site-based management. So, again, they are public schools with site-based management. That, in brief, is the definition of a charter school. Now, that is not better or worse than a district running a school. It can be better; it can be worse. And as we look across the country, we see examples of good charter schools and bad charter schools. Just because something is a charter school certainly doesn't mean it is good. What we've tried to do with this bill is improve the quality of the authorizing practices of the States and the districts as they go into: A, initially evaluating charter schools and making sure they serve at- risk students and show demonstrated success in closing the achievement gap; and, B, making sure that they follow through on what their charter contains. A charter is a synonym for a contract. Effectively, these schools operate through contracts with public authorities, namely authorizers, States, State charter institutes, regions, and school districts, and they are able to operate under those contracts and fulfill their role as public schools. What are charter schools not? And I sometimes hear from my colleagues, is this corporate control of our schools? Is this some for- profit thing? No, it is actually irrelevant to that discussion, the discussion of charter schools. Sometimes for-profit companies are brought in as vendors to run schools. Now, this can happen with school districts just as surely as it can happen with charter schools. Some of the larger instances of this have been school districts because, of course, charter schools are much more mom and pop. But that is a separate discussion about what vendors can and cannot be brought in to actually run public schools. In the State of Colorado, as an example, we don't allow any for- profit institutions to hold a charter. Now, certainly we don't restrict charters to school districts, and they bring in a variety of vendors. I think every school district in the country uses private, for-profit textbook vendors as an example. But we would be against managing out of D.C. what vendors they bring in. In fact, charter schools and school districts have great discretion about what vendors they use. But what this bill does is it effectively ups the ante on the accountability, the oversight, and also assisting with the growth of quality charter schools. Many charter schools across the country focus on particular areas of learning or emphasize particular aspects of curriculum. We have excellent art charter schools, college prep charter schools, Montessori charter schools, core knowledge, English language acquisition, outdoor learning, and education charter schools. They can function more independently than a large district because they do have site-based management that allows for operational flexibility. They can have different school calendars, different school days, and different curriculums. This freedom allows the charters to function autonomously in areas that can benefit children's success in school. And again, with experimentation, not everything you try is going to work. And, of course, for every example of a charter school that successfully serves at-risk kids, there are also counterexamples of charter schools that are doing as poorly, or more so, than some of the failing neighborhood schools that the children were in before. I have direct experience founding and running several charter schools in Colorado that filled particular education niches. I founded and served as superintendent of New America School. When I saw that many school districts in my State were dropping funding for older students that were still learning English and there weren't the types of programs to keep new immigrants in high school through a diploma, I approached several school districts about approving a charter school for this population, for 16- to 21-year-old English language learners. We were granted several charters. New America School now operates in Colorado and New Mexico and has served thousands of English language learners, helping them achieve a high school diploma through meeting their real-life needs. Again, we really worked backwards from where the customers were. Why weren't these students in school in the first place? Many of them had real-life obstacles. They had day jobs; so they needed a night school. Forty percent of the young women had children; so they needed either on-site daycare or some sort of daycare voucher that we were able to help them supply. And just as importantly, we made sure that every member of the staff, the teachers at the school, every single one of them, is passionate about helping new immigrants learn English; and that is what brought them to our school and actually improved the faculty morale because they were able to practice their passion rather than it being an afterthought as it was in some of the other conventional schools. I also founded the Academy of Urban Learning, which is focused on educating homeless students in Denver. Right here in Washington, D.C., we have seen the success of several excellent charter schools that have outperformed other public schools, including the KIPP schools. So we have seen across this country, as a result of the charter school movement, great experimentation, some successes and some failures. It's time, 10 years on, to learn from our experiences with charter schools and replace the Federal authorizing act with one that can really up the ante, take the learning that has occurred over the last decade into account and improve both the quality of charter schools generally and the quantity of good charter schools across our country. This bill would update the existing Federal initiatives. We provide critical investment in quality alternatives. The bill carves out 15 percent of the funding for facilities, capital, and credit enhancements, and the remaining 80 percent would go to start new charter schools. The bill would require States to provide 90 percent of their grants to charter school authorizers and operators. It also incorporates much of the language from a bill that Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota and I introduced last session and this session, the All-STAR Act, which would add for the first time Federal law State-level funding for expansion of successful charter schools. So, again, when we have examples of what works in public education, why not do more of it? Yes, we want to turn around failing schools. Yes, we need to improve upon what doesn't work. And yes, we need to hold charter schools that are not working fully accountable under the law. But when we have an example of something that works, we should support serving more kids. As a simple example, in my State and district, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy in Westminster is a K-8 charter school that opened just 4 years ago. I'm glad, by the way, that one of the amendments made in order under this rule is an amendment from Mr. Paulsen and I that would specify that schools that have 3 years of demonstrated success are eligible for expansion grants, because this school has only been around for 4 years. It has an extended year, extended day program. It provides after-school tutoring, full-day kindergarten. Every student studies chess and tennis. The student population maps the kind of a traditional at-risk population, with 95 percent Latino, 86 percent English language learners, 93 percent free and reduced lunch. This means these are poor and working families. Yet, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy has scored far above the State average, including our wealthy suburban districts like some of the other areas that I represent, in the past 3 years. They scored 95 to 100 percent proficient in math, between 77 and 97 percent proficient in reading and writing, and for third- and fifth-graders they've averaged 20 percent higher than the State averages. Other successful charter schools in Colorado, like the Denver School of Science and Technology, have also achieved positive outcomes with low- income students. I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to talk about many of the amendments made in order under this bill. We did in the Rules Committee propose an open rule for these bills, and it would have been nice to have a more thorough discussion, which is why I'll be opposing this rule. But I am glad I did make in order several amendments, including one of mine. Mr. Speaker, this rule also brings another very important bill to the floor, the Fiscal Year 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act. This bill continues the recent bipartisan tradition of passing authorization bills in order to reform and conduct oversight of our intelligence community. Every Member of this body believes strongly in keeping our country safe. When we're discussing the threats to our Nation and the war on terror, the front line of that war is our intelligence-gathering apparatus and our intelligence community. In this time of budget constraint we know we need to spend our money wisely. I've often argued that instead of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars invading countries preemptively, we should use our force selectively, including targeted collection of intelligence about where threats arise. This bill makes a balanced compromise between budget realities and our national security need. This authorization did find savings in various aspects of the intelligence community. It proposes to curb post-personnel growth while protecting our capabilities. While it invests in select high-priority needs, it also achieves savings by handling contractors similar to the way the President handles pay for civilian employees. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that this body was able to come together with both of the committees of jurisdiction, Intelligence and Education and Workforce, around strong bipartisan compromise under these two bills. And while I wish we had the opportunity to further discuss additional recommendations for amendments on the floor, I am appreciative that in fact there will be a robust discussion with regard to the charter school bill under this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make Mr. Garamendi of California's amendment in order. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, again, one of the best practices that I think we have learned over the last 10 years is the importance of having alternative authorizing agencies. In fact, 32 States have created alternative authorizing agencies, including my home State of Colorado which has a charter school institute. In other States it takes the form of vesting mayors, university board of regents, or State boards of education as alternative authorizers. Doing so ensures that bold ideas for charter schools brought forth by parents and grassroots community members are more likely to get a fair shot at being considered if there is an alternative authorizer, instead of what's already in the bill, which also should be present, which is an appeals process. An appeals process automatically kind of sets up a kind of adversarial relationship. We have that as well in Colorado. When I served on the State Board of Education, we heard appeals processes. So if a district turned down a charter school, it was appealed to the State Board. We could then overrule that district and force them to grant it. But it set up a very adversarial relationship. What has proven to work better in 32 States that have it is having an alternative authorizer in addition to an appeals process so that districts that simply don't want to be in the charter authorizing business or that refuse to grant any charter schools or don't have an application process for them can simply allow another entity to provide the quality oversight that's needed for a charter school in the district. One of the great evolutions of the last 10 years has been the responsibility of charter school authorizers. It's not simply a charter school that needs to reform. It's the authorizer, the public entity, that needs to hold that charter school responsible for the performance of its students. In my State of Colorado, our charter school institute approved 22 charter schools serving 10,000 students in the 6 years that we've had it. That's 22 out of about 120 charter schools that exist in the State. The State University of New York and the University of Indiana in Michigan have also approved some of those States' most successful charter schools. Local school boards look at things in a different way sometimes. They appropriately consider their district's own financial situation when voting on charter schools. But that focus sometimes interferes with their consideration of the greater good and local control. Quiet, quality, viable public school choices for parents and students that address the diverse learning needs of their district. Unreasonable denials by school districts can be appealed in States. And that's already one of the provisions of this. But from my own experience on the State Board of Education, I know that the appeals process is really less desirable for a number of reasons. First of all, it's only reactive and only addresses the merits of whether a particular school board denial was valid or not. It's not proactive in terms of developing innovative learning models and supporting the quality, development, and authorizing practice of charter schools. Two, appeals can address school district delays in approving charter schools. There's also a way of kind of killing by delay--burying under paperwork, unreasonable request after unreasonable request from the school district to the founders of the charter school that ultimately lead to the abandonment of the idea. Appeals are often limited in scope and criteria. And appeals are also a drain on State resources, State Board of Education members' time, Department of Education staff time, State attorney generals' time. So while they have their role, it really should be a last resort and shouldn't be prioritized as the best practice. That's why I'm proposing to add a priority for multiple charter authorizers. Again, States will be able to determine the best form that that should take. I should also point out this is very important for rural areas and small districts. It is very, very difficult if not impossible for a small district or rural school district to be a quality authorizer. In many cases, they recognize that, and would rather not be. In fact, in Colorado, most of the districts that have welcomed the State authorizer and said for the local applicants to apply to them instead of their district are districts that know that they can't engage in a meaningful approval or oversight process. By having a Statewide entity you allow some scale to the very important business of being an authorizer--a scale that small and rural districts lack. We can empower community members in those districts with the power of school choice and charters by ensuring that there is a multiple authorizer. This amendment is supported by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools as well as--and very important, a newer entity at the national level--the National Association for Charter School Authorizers, which is actually composed of districts and State authorizing agencies, both of whom have endorsed this amendment. Again, it simply establishes this as a priority for funding, ensuring that this best practice that we've come to learn over the last decade can better be reflected and that hopefully States that haven't yet had the chance to look at a way to create an alternative authorizing agency will be able to learn from the States that have under this, and do so, to ensure that charter schools get a fair hearing, prevent the adversarial outcomes that too frequently come from the appeals process, and ensure that choice is given meaning in rural school districts and small school districts. I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I think the gentleman from New Jersey has, as he put it, good language that should not only be included in this bill, but I think in other relevant construction bills as well. Very simply, it encourages the Secretary to give priority to States that encourage green building practices and certification. Again, that could be as simple as a State making sure that those options are available. Other States have tax credits or other methods of incentivizing green school development. When we are talking about our national energy policy, we are talking about how frustrated our constituents are with gas prices; we're talking about our national security as a Nation and our energy security. I think that for this Congress to ensure that in every bill, large and small, we encourage--again, without any mandate to school districts, without any requirement, but encourage the Secretary to give priority to States that have at least some system for encouraging green school building development, I think this is a good thing to start right here in a small way, in a bill that certainly won't on its own turn around the energy future of our country, but on its own does have the potential to help drive scale of green technology without compromising educational outcomes. Again, I think this is an appropriate addition to the bill and will hopefully lead to improvements of energy efficiency in charter schools across the country. I thank the gentleman for yielding.