[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9970-H9983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CHARTER SCHOOLS AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 288 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2616.

                              {time}  2116


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2616) to amend titles VI and X of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 to improve and expand charter schools, with Mr. 
Snowbarger in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Just to start this discussion, Mr. Chairman, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] will be carrying on here shortly, but I am a 
strong believer in the charter schools. I was not a supporter of the 
voucher bill that we just voted on, but I am a total believer that if 
we are going to deal with experimentation and change in our schools, 
this is the way to do it.
  I have been in every single school in my State. This is Delaware we 
are talking about. It is 182 schools. I have not been in one of the 
charter schools, but I have been in our three charter schools which 
have started.
  I think the best way to describe why we should increase this funding 
authorization from $15 million to $100 million and give them some 
additional latitude with respect to what they are doing is to say what 
is happening in these schools. The proof is certainly in the pudding 
when we see it here.
  I have been to the charter school at Wilmington, which was sponsored 
by a consortium of six employers in Delaware and focuses on math and 
science. It offers the most rigorous academic program in the State, 
pays teachers based on merit, and emphasizes values and character 
development.
  I have seen and heard of the Positive Outcome School in Dover, which 
targets children who are at risk of failure in school and who have 
learning difficulties and emotional problems. Ninety percent of 
students have attention deficit disorder, and 33 percent are learning-
disabled. Positive Outcomes has a 1 to 10 teacher-student ratio.
  Yesterday I went to the East Side Charter School in Wilmington, 
Delaware. It is run by the Wilmington Housing Authority. Every child in 
that school is a minority child. Nearly 30 percent of the school's 
students do reside in public housing. It is a K-through-3 school. It 
offers an 11-month academic year, a 1-to-15 teacher/student ratio, two 
full-day kindergarten

[[Page H9971]]

classes, a strong curriculum in the basic academics. It goes through 
teacher conflict. It essentially is doing the kinds of things we talk 
about doing perhaps to give our public schools a better opportunity. 
This is a great opportunity for those young people in that school.
  This is a great opportunity for the Congress of the United States to 
step forward and to do something which will help those students who can 
go to charter schools, but will also help us see how we can do better 
in our public schools. That is really what this is all about. It is a 
relatively simple bill. It is a piece of legislation which I think we 
should support universally. The President supports it. The National 
Education Association actually sponsors some charter schools.
  We would encourage the creation of charter schools by directing funds 
to those States that allow an increase in the number of schools. We 
would encourage autonomy over budget and expenditures of charter 
schools. We reduce the Federal setaside from 10 percent to 5 percent. 
These are the very kinds of things that we need to do in America if we 
are truly going to make our public education system better.
  I look upon this as a great help for the public education system, as 
well as a great outcome for those students who can avail themselves of 
the opportunity to attend the charter schools which are in existence 
now. We are going to double our charter schools in Delaware next year. 
I hope with this legislation we can do more across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time originally granted to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch] will now be controlled by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could be as optimistic and 
enthusiastic as the last speaker was about charter schools.
  As many Members know, I am cautious about charter schools. I am 
supportive of the concept of charter schools and their possible impacts 
on the larger public school system as a whole. The chairman of the 
subcommittee on which I am the ranking member, my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], has held a number of 
hearings on charter schools to examine their place as an educational 
reform tool.
  Obviously, since all of us, both Republicans and Democrats, say we 
are concerned about the educational opportunities of our children, we 
believe that charter schools are certainly an idea worth exploring, and 
in this instance probably an idea worthy of Federal support.
  Throughout the hearings that we held on charter schools, we heard 
several serious problems, though, regarding the admission and provision 
of services to children with disabilities. In addition, controversy 
continues to swirl around the governing structure of charter schools in 
many States. Even here in D.C. there is a charter school that is in 
trouble, and the local school board is talking about taking away their 
charter. That is Marcus Garvey.

  So I believe it is fair to say that because of their rather short 
existence, the oldest only being about 6 years old, there is still a 
lot to learn about their impact and their effectiveness in assuring 
educational success for our children.
  Like I said earlier, while I have a positive outlook on the impact of 
charter schools on our educational system, I am concerned about the 
direction that this bill would take the Federal Government in the area 
of charter schools. I believe the bill raises a number of serious 
policy questions, and during later debate I intend to offer several 
amendments which I believe would fix these deficiencies.
  This bill would establish, in my mind, a set of criteria which a 
State's charter statute would have to meet in order to ensure that the 
State is not at a disadvantage for funding. We here in Congress should 
not be in the practice of establishing funding priorities on how we 
believe individual State charters should be written, if we feel that 
flexibility is a success for them.
  My colleagues who have heard me speak over the years know that I have 
always been concerned about unneeded interference by the Federal 
Government in the legislative affairs of the States and local 
governments. I have said repeatedly, it is local school boards who 
govern the school districts. Charter schools are defined by State 
statutes in the legislation they pass, so I do not believe it is the 
place of Congress through a micromanagement system to stipulate how 
that charter statute should be constructed.
  I am also concerned about the changes in the period allowed for 
grants from 3 years to 5 years, and additional 2-year extension grants. 
I believe this change would force the Federal Government to begin 
supporting operating costs, rather than staying within the realm of 
start-up costs. Why should we extend the amount of time which a charter 
school would continue to receive start-up funds? Do we have charter 
schools taking 5 years to complete their start-up activities? I do not 
think so. I see little, if any, justification for that provision.
  My last major concern lies in the rewrite of the national activities 
section of the statute. This bill would require the Secretary to make 
as his primary activity, with funds appropriated under the statute, the 
generation of private capital for charter schools.
  I strongly believe that the emphasis of the Department's activities 
should be towards evaluation, technical assistance, and outreach, not 
to act as a Wall Street banker for charter schools. However, I do want 
to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] for his extremely 
hard work in fashioning the bill that not only reflects his priorities, 
but Democratic priorities as well. The hard work of both the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and his staff on this bill is a tribute to 
his dedication to the charter school concept.
  In total, I do want to stress that I am not against the concept of 
charter schools. In fact, like many of my colleagues, I see the value 
in using charter schools as one of the many educational reform tools in 
our public education system. I just do not believe that the policy 
direction which this bill would take the Federal support of charter 
schools is in the best interests of charter schools or the children 
that they serve. I am hopeful that through the amendment process, that 
we can rectify the deficiencies that I have outlined.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time originally controlled by the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle] will be controlled by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to come down to the well momentarily, but 
while I stand here at this podium, I want to thank my good friend and 
vice chairman of the subcommittee for claiming the time and for his 
eloquent statement in support of charter schools.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me tell Members that I am pleased 
that I can rise in support of what I hope becomes, based on the final 
vote, a very strong bipartisan bill expanding public school choice for 
parents. I emphasize that at the outset, because I just want my 
colleagues to know that on the last vote we had, just about an hour or 
so ago, the idea of allowing State and local school districts around 
the country to use one particular category or source of Federal 
taxpayer funding for education to provide scholarships for low-income 
parents unfortunately was defeated in this Chamber by pretty much a 
party line vote. In fact, I have the numbers here. Eighty-two percent 
of House Republicans supported the HELP Scholarships bill, and 93 
percent of House Democrats voted against it.
  The other thing I want to say, so I can get any note of partisan 
rancor here out of the way at the outset of the debate, I also want to 
take exception to comments that were made recently by the President. I 
have here in my hand an AP wire story from October 24 that begins by 
quoting the President as saying, ``President Clinton suggested

[[Page H9972]]

today,'' October 24, ``that Congressional Republicans want the 
government to do next to nothing in education.''
  It is unfortunate the President would say those words, because, of 
course, what we have on the floor now is a bipartisan bill that would, 
as I said earlier, greatly expand public school choice for parents, and 
which would fully fund the President's proposal for $100 million in 
Federal taxpayer funding for the start-up or creation of more charter 
schools in America during the Federal fiscal year 1998.
  So, Mr. President, you were ill-informed or certainly misspoken when 
you claimed that we are doing next to nothing in education, because 
here is a bill where we fully intend to team up with a number of House 
Democrats, Members of the President's own party, to advance legislation 
that he have requested.
  And I will daresay, as I said earlier this evening during the debate 
on the HELP Scholarships bill, that at the end of the day, either later 
tonight or later this week when we reach final passage on this bill, a 
majority, an overwhelming majority, of House Republicans are going to 
support the Charter Schools Amendments Act of 1997. I daresay a 
majority, I hope it is not a large majority, but a majority of House 
Democrats will vote against that legislation. So be clear, Mr. 
President and the American people, who is trying to do something for 
parents and for children in education.
  Now, it is clear to me that with respect to education, we are seeing 
a phenomenon across the land in this country today. It is one of those 
that we could sort of put under the heading of when the people lead, 
the leaders will follow. I am referring to the growing and widespread 
public demand on the part of education consumers, parents, and 
guardians for more competition and more choice in education.
  I would like to cite for my colleagues and introduce for the Record 
an article that appeared on October 1 in the Washington Post, not 
exactly a conservative newspaper, entitled ``Popularity Grows for 
Alternatives to Public Schools, Some Districts,'' referring to local 
school districts around the country, ``Some Districts Reacting to 
Threat of Competition.''
  The article began by saying, ``In a movement flustering schools 
across the Nation, more parents than ever are choosing alternatives to 
public education for their children, including public charter schools, 
religious schools, and home schooling, so much that what once seemed a 
fad to many educators is instead starting to resemble a revolution.''

                              {time}  2130

  The article closed by quoting Robert Chase, who is the president of 
the National Education Association Teachers Union. I am not sure, Mr. 
Chase says, I am not sure if any of us really know yet where these 
trends are leading us, but it had better make us take a hard look at 
what we are doing in public education.
  So I hope we are very clear that there is a growing competition and 
response to parents' concerns and that that growing competition is 
forcing the public school system to react. We are going to try to give 
that whole movement a little bit more impetus with the legislation 
before us on the House floor this evening.
  I am very glad that I have been able to work closely with the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] on this legislation. Just on a 
personal note, he and his staff have been wonderful to work with. I 
think we really have forged a bill that strengthens existing law and 
which will enjoy wide bipartisan support in the House.
  I think it is also important and fair to note that a majority of the 
Democrats on the full House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
supported this bill, 10 Democrats, thanks largely to the leadership of 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the respect in which he is 
held by his colleagues, 10 Democrats, 10 out of 18, so a majority voted 
for the bill in committee.
  I believe, I hope I am correct in saying this, that the President has 
endorsed, if not this specific bill, legislation very similar in 
concept to our bill. And the Department of Education has issued a 
statement of qualified support for the legislation.
  One reason for the growing bipartisan support for charter schools in 
Congress is the popularity of charter schools outside Washington, D.C., 
a popularity that has been soaring over just the last few years and 
that has led to Members, individual Members of Congress, hearing from 
parents, their constituents, about the demand, or maybe the desire is 
the better way to put it, for more and expanded public school choice.
  This all began in 1991, in Minnesota, which became the first State in 
the Union to authorize charter schools. Now today, just 6 short years 
later, we have 29 States with charter school laws, along with the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and some 700 charter schools 
serving 170,000 children across the country. And there are more 
starting every day and several hundred more, I am told, on the drawing 
boards in these 29 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
  So I think charter schools have arrived. They are now, I think, 
viewed as an integral component to reform and improvement of the public 
schools and our public education system. And the reports that we have 
heard and the testimony that we gathered during the committee process 
indicated that administrators who are running these charter schools are 
delighted to be freed up from stifling regulations. Teachers are, 
indeed, this is probably the most important aspect of independent 
charter schools, teachers are free to innovate, and students who attend 
charter schools are eager to learn, and their parents seem to be 
thrilled by the results.
  We heard, during the committee process, from Dr. Yvonne Chan, who is 
a lifelong professional educator for the Los Angeles Unified School 
District and a charter school developer in the San Fernando Valley area 
of Los Angeles, about the three B's, which represented her frustrations 
with traditional public schools, what she called busing, bureaucracy, 
and but; the fact that her schools too often had to bus neighborhood 
children outside that neighborhood to go to another public school. Now, 
by starting her own charter school, she is able to bring those kids 
back into the neighborhood where they live to attend school there.
  Bureaucracy, and I think we all know the concerns about bureaucracy, 
and charter schools are quintessentially an experiment, but they are a 
movement in decentralizing and deregulating local public schools, 
giving them autonomy from the bureaucracy.
  And Dr. Chan talked about the ``but'' problem, the ``but'' syndrome. 
Every time she had a good idea to propose up through the ranks, she got 
back the answer, that is a good idea but we cannot implement it for the 
following reasons. She was a very important witness to us, as we seek 
to expand charter schools and public school choice through the use of 
Federal taxpayer dollars.
  Congress, the Federal Government, has been involved in the creation 
of charter schools since 1994, when Congress first authorized national 
charter schools as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
and established an earmarked Federal funding stream to assist charter 
schools with start-up costs.
  We heard from a number of charter school developers around the 
country what business entrepreneurs have known for years, and that is, 
in trying to start up a charter school, it often takes longer and costs 
more than they originally anticipated. So there is clearly an important 
role where the Federal Government and Federal taxpayers can support the 
charter schools movement.
  This bill responds to concerns expressed by students, parents, 
teachers, and charter school operators or developers in our five 
hearings on charter schools, and it responds to the findings of various 
public and private studies, including the Department of Education's own 
first year report of their 4-year study on charter schools.
  The highlights of the bill, very quickly, are these.
  One, it meets the President's funding level, his budget request to 
Congress for charter schools, by increasing the authorization, the 
current authorization, from $51 million in Federal taxpayer funding for 
charter schools to $100 million. So that is roughly a doubling or 100 
percent increase in Federal

[[Page H9973]]

taxpayer financial support for charter schools.
  Two, it drives 95 percent of that money, the money for Federal 
charter schools, to the State and local levels to establish charter 
schools. It only leaves the Department with 5 percent to continue to 
conduct their study and other evaluation and national activities.
  Three, it purposely directs the new money, the increase, the 
difference between 51 million and 100 million, to those States that 
provide a high degree of physical autonomy to charter schools and that 
allow for increases in the number of charter schools and that provide 
for strong academic accountability. We want to know, bottom line here, 
that charter schools are leading to an improvement in pupil performance 
and that charter schools are meeting or exceeding the academic 
performance goals set out in their charters.
  Four, it ensures that charter schools can compete with traditional 
public schools on an equal footing for Federal categorical education 
aid. That is under the very simple premise that the money should follow 
the child and that charter schools should not be placed at some sort of 
competitive disadvantage in obtaining their fair and equitable share of 
per pupil funding under both Federal, State, and local funding sources.
  Five, it directs the Secretary to assist charter schools in accessing 
private capital. That is particularly important to help charter schools 
deal with those up-front development costs, particularly capital 
expenses that they incur in trying to lease or renovate buildings and 
in trying to provide a housing or physical premise necessary to conduct 
a charter school.
  Six, it extends the life of the Federal start-up grant from 3 years 
to 5 years in an effort to give charter schools a little bit more time 
to become financially stable and solvent, and that is again important 
because we heard from charter school operators in our hearings and in 
the written testimony, again, that many times while they were producing 
impressive academic results at the 3-year mark, they were still 
struggling to make ends meet financially.
  This bill improves upon the existing Federal charter school law by 
sending more money directly to charter schools and by providing a 
maximum amount of flexibility for charter schools in that critical 
start-up phase. This legislation is the springboard necessary to meet 
the goal of having 3,000 charter schools in America in operation by the 
year 2000, a goal, a bipartisan goal, frequently cited by the 
President.
  Again, in closing, I want to especially thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], for his hard work on this issue 
and for the diligent work that his staffer, Gina Mahoney, has done in 
helping us to craft the legislation. He has, indeed, as his comments 
earlier tonight would suggest, been a very strong advocate for public 
education reform through charter schools, and this legislation would 
not be on the floor this evening without his very strong and active 
input and involvement.
  I will close by citing these two charts. Clearly, support for charter 
schools is not only growing, as I mentioned earlier, but it really 
almost transcends the normal demographics and political party 
breakdown, as this chart indicates. There is strong support among all 
different groups, regardless of racial or ethnic backgrounds and 
regardless of political party affiliation, for creating more charter 
schools.
  And lastly, since I referred to them, his comments earlier tonight in 
the context of our HELP scholarships bill, I do want to, out of 
fairness to the President, point out that he has been a leader on this 
issue. These are his comments from that same Presidential debate, the 
first Presidential debate in Connecticut last year with Senator Dole. 
He said there, I support school choice; I have advocated expansion of 
public school choice alternatives and the creation of 3,000 new schools 
that we are going to help the States finance.
  And as I pointed out tonight, the Riggs-Roemer or the Roemer-Riggs 
or, as the minority leader suggested earlier, the Roemer bill would 
help us move much closer to that goal of 3,000 new schools.
  And the President went on to say, I am all for students having more 
choices; we worked hard to expand public school choice; in my balanced 
budget bill, there are funds for 3,000 new schools created by teachers 
and parents, sometimes by business people, called charter schools that 
have no rules.
  So I think we are on to something good here, and for those of us who 
truly believe that we ought to give parents more alternatives, that we 
ought to listen to the people demanding more choice and more 
competition, more freedom in the public education system, I think we 
have an opportunity to tell them, we hear you and we are going to 
respond to your concerns by the swift bipartisan passage of H.R. 2616, 
the Riggs-Roemer Charter Schools Amendments Act of 1997.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who is coauthor of the bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by saying that in 
this past session of Congress we have shown the American people that we 
wanted to work together in a bipartisan way to balance the budget, that 
we wanted to work together in a bipartisan way to provide modest tax 
relief for hard-working Americans, and now it is time to move on to 
education and work in a bipartisan way to help fix, restore, resurrect, 
and reform our public education system.
  I want to thank for much of that bipartisanship the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], my friend, and his fine staffer, Denzel 
McGuire, for her hard work, his entire personal staff and committee 
staff for their hard work. We have worked hours and hours, days and 
months on this legislation. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
has shown not only a very adept sense at understanding the legislation 
but a real common sense in listening to the people across this country 
that are very, very much in favor of charter schools.
  I very much look forward to a strong bipartisan support here on the 
House floor, moving it to the Senate and then getting it signed by the 
President.
  By the way, the President of the United States, President Clinton, 
not only talked about charter schools, which are public school choice, 
he has been a strong advocate of this program and wants to move from 
700 charter schools that we currently have to over 3,000 charter 
schools. I thank the President and the Department of Education for 
their strong support.
  Now, what are charter schools? Charter schools, for those listening 
out in Indiana and across America, are public school choice. Parents 
and students should be able to send their children to the best school 
in their environment. Whether it is an inner city or a rural community, 
let us insist on every public school being the best it can possibly be 
and that every child has the choice to go to that best public school. 
Let us make sure we save every one of these children and demand 
excellence from every one of our schools.
  Charter schools are less regulated. Charter schools have less 
bureaucracy. Charter schools have more ability to be innovative and try 
new, bold ideas with the curriculum, doing partnerships with the 
business community, having longer school days and school years. Charter 
schools are cradles of invention and innovation, and we should very 
strongly support them today or next time we vote on this charter school 
legislation. I hope it is tomorrow or Thursday, whenever we get to this 
bill.

                              {time}  2145

  Public school choice is the way we should try to move in this 
country. What are the initial studies saying about school choice? The 
National School Board Association has noted that there are so-called 
secondary ripple effects with these charter schools, 700 of them 
already out there, that are now creating evidence that traditional 
schools are working harder to please local families so they will not 
abandon them for charter schools.
  Charter schools are creating the competition to force other public 
schools

[[Page H9974]]

to be the excellent schools that we need. The Chicago model for 
reforming and saving our public school system is using charter schools 
to be innovative. I think this is a very strong idea to help restore 
and save public education in this country, where education now is 
critically important. In the next century, it is going to determine 
even more so winners from losers.
  So, again, I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs] for his hard work. I strongly encourage my colleagues on the 
Republican and the Democratic side to support this charter school bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, may I clarify how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has 10 
minutes remaining. The other gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] 
has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon [Ms. Hooley].
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express some reservations that I have about 
this legislation. But first of all, I would like to thank my colleague, 
I would like to thank members of the committee, especially the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling], chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent 
work in bringing this bill before us today.
  I agree with the sponsors of this bill that we must give States the 
flexibility to help foster the kind of innovation that charter schools 
provide while maintaining high levels of accountability. Parents, 
teachers, and administrators throughout the Nation have indicated again 
and again that they want the flexibility to try different approaches of 
educating their children, and we should support their efforts. Public 
charter schools expand the choices for parents, students, and typically 
they incorporate a great deal of input from our local communities.
  There is a bipartisan agreement that charter schools have been 
effective in many cases, and the best way to continue this progress is 
to provide the additional start-up support for new charter schools.
  The primary role of the Federal Government is to provide the support 
by sending money back to the States for the planning and the 
implementation of these new schools. However, that role is not to 
dictate to the States how they should run their charter school 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to this legislation that 
would maintain existing language regarding State laws required to 
receive support from the Federal program. Charter schools, by design, 
are experiments in systemic reform. I am sure that the provisions in 
this bill were designed to increase the number of charter schools 
nationwide. We have heard that many times tonight. However, this 
legislation puts Congress in the role of deciding how State legislators 
should write their laws.
  This bill does provide support for that innovation by extending the 
authorized amount for the program. But, at the same time, those States 
that already have enabling legislation, this bill says they must write 
new statutes or lose their funding. We should stick to providing funds 
that help establish new charter schools.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that I will introduce 
tomorrow and resist imposing new standards on these States.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Martinez], the ranking member, for yielding me the time.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], 
chairman of the subcommittee, who has done a good job in putting 
together a generally very good bill here. I think it is one area in 
education that we can finally say that people have tried to work 
together without rancor and bitterness to try to come together with an 
idea of how we might really buttress our public schools.
  When we voted a little over an hour ago on vouchers, I think there 
was a clear division, a clear disagreement as to whether or not that 
was a step outside of support for public schools into an area that many 
of us did not want to go and do not think is going to strengthen our 
public school system.
  I have said it here on the floor before, and I think it bears 
repeating, that we have a clear philosophy in this country that we are, 
in fact, in favor of public schools. We understand that those people 
that are fortunate enough to be able to send their children to private 
schools should have the ability to do so, and that has historically 
been the case.
  But there are over 50 million children in this country that do not 
have that kind of benefit, do not have the family with that kind of 
income. Nor is there any likelihood that we are going to ever create 50 
million vouchers to give everybody the chance. But we can provide 
better public schools for all 50-million-plus of those children. We are 
willing to step forward on the charter schools to experiment, to let 
local States and communities experiment within the public school system 
and find the direction that they are comfortable with.
  I think that we have done that in the appropriations bill, where we 
talked about the comprehensive schools, we talked about people and 
communities coming together with the school to define a mission, to 
decide just how they are going to measure the progress under that 
mission, to bring the whole community in to work on that, whether it is 
colleges nearby, business communities, the parents of course, employees 
at the school, the administration, to develop this system and to move 
forward. And always, we want higher standards.
  But in all of those scenarios, we also expect we are going to have to 
provide the resources to make the public schools successful. The 
chairman of the subcommittee and I had a discussion the other day. We 
talked about a certain charter school, where it had left the public 
school building, set up across town, and thought they were doing great 
because they gave each student a computer and each student a computer 
at home. That will always work if you do it, even if the public school 
had not moved.
  We want to say that there are parts of this bill we need to improve, 
one being the priority section, so that Massachusetts and other States 
can benefit from legislation as well. And providing we do that, an 
amendment will be offered for that, we should be able to work forward 
to improve our public schools.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kind].
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez] on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce for yielding me the time.
  As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. 
Chairman, I rise in strong support tonight for this legislation. I, 
too, would like to commend my colleagues and friends on the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], for the hard work that 
they put in in drafting this legislation that is a good bipartisan 
piece of legislation, legislation that is really geared to helping the 
public school system in this country to improve themselves and give 
parents greater choice, teachers greater flexibility in how they are 
going to teach our children.
  I urge my colleagues tonight to get behind and support this charter 
school legislation. I am a supporter of school choice, Mr. Chairman. I 
believe that the parents should be allowed to send their children, 
whether it is the public school or private schools of their choice. I 
oppose, however, the voucher plan that we earlier voted down in this 
Chamber. I think it is a drain on the public school resources, limited 
resources that are available.
  My State of Wisconsin earlier this year struck down a private voucher 
plan in that State as an unconstitutional infringement upon the 
separation of church and State. The public schools are America's 
commitment and promise, really, to provide a quality

[[Page H9975]]

education to every child in this country. They are the great equalizers 
in our society.
  Charter schools are merely public schools that are created by 
teachers, parents, and other members of the community as innovative 
means to educate students and to stimulate creativity in the public 
school system.
  Wisconsin passed its charter school bill back in 1993. We have 15 
currently in existence. There is a lot of demand for increasing that 
number in recent years. This legislation will provide the seed money to 
allow States such as Wisconsin, with the positive feedback and results 
that we are seeing in the charter school system, get that type of seed 
money in order to improve the public education system.
  I believe it is time to provide the support to parents and teachers, 
school districts and communities throughout the country to think 
creatively with bold innovative ideas and the flexibility necessary to 
meet the challenges we face in preparing all our children to the 
challenges of America. I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Kind] for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Paul].
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I was in 
support of the scholarship programs that we just voted down. But this 
bill introduces the notion of a brand new Federal program. I have not 
seen the problem to be lack of Government intervention at the Federal 
level, nor lack of funds.
  I believe very sincerely that our public school system faces too much 
regulation from the Federal level, we do not need a new program. In 
this bill we will have mandates from the Federal Government on the 
States. There is also recommendations in here that the curriculum be 
evaluated. To me, this introduces a notion that we are so much opposed 
to testing, because it is the eventual evaluation and setting of 
standards that I think is so dangerous to the public school system.
  This bill has $100 million in it. I can see why some who believe in 
big government believe in expanding the role of government in 
education, would support this. I strongly oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition 
to H.R. 2616, a bill amending titles VI and X of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand the use of charter schools. 
Despite the understandable enthusiasm many members of Congress feel 
toward charter schools, Congress should reject this bill as it 
represents an unconstitutional federal infringement upon the authority 
of states, local communities, and individual citizens to control 
education. The tenth amendment reserves to the states and the people 
``all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,'' 
and thus forbids the federal government from any interference in 
education be it by mandating a national curriculum or providing 
incentives to states and localities to form charter schools. The 
drafters of the constitution made no exception for education in the 
tenth amendment.
  H.R. 2616 encourages states to alter their education laws and 
policies for the purpose of increasing the number of charter schools to 
at least 3,000 by the year 2000. In order to achieve this 
congressionally set goal, the Secretary of Education is instructed to 
give prioritized funding to states which allow charter schools a ``high 
degree of autonomy'' over their respective budgets and expenditures; 
have at least one chartering authority which allows for an increase in 
the number of charter schools each year; and provides for periodic 
review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering agency of 
each charter school. Thus, the federal government will use monies 
seized from the American people to ``persuade'' the states to create 
more charter schools with federal specifications. Of course, if the 
federal government reduced its oppressive level of taxation, the 
American people would have more resources to devote to education and 
states would feel less compelled to obey Congressional mandates in 
order to finance education.
  A federal policy of encouraging charter schools represents an 
exercise in legislative hubris incompatible with ending ``the era of 
big government.'' The charter school model may not be appropriate for 
every state in the nation. Whether or not a charter school is 
appropriate for a local community is a decision best made by the people 
in that respective community. Yet, this bill makes it national policy 
to encourage the formation of charter schools throughout the nation 
because Congress has determined charter schools are desirable. However, 
a centralized body such as Congress is institutionally incapable of 
knowing what reforms work best for every school district in this large 
and diverse nation. Therefore, rather than expanding federal 
programs, Congress should defund the federal education bureaucracy and 
return control over education to those best suited to design effective 
education programs--local communities and individual citizens.

  Proponents of this bill claim that it expands the educational options 
available to the nation's children. However, increasing federal 
involvement in education actually decreases the ability of parents to 
control their child's education. As a greater percentage of the 
nation's educational resources are devoted to fulfilling the wishes of 
Congress, fewer resources will be devoted to fulfilling the wishes of 
America's parents. This is because some people who would otherwise 
operate a religious-based school, for example, will instead open 
charter schools in order to receive federal funds. Since charter 
schools cannot offer religious instruction, those parents who would 
send their children to that school if it provided a parochial education 
are denied the ability to educate their children in accordance with 
their preferences.
  Mr. Chairman, further evidence of how this bill would actually limit 
educational options can be found in the language making ``evaluations'' 
of charter schools one of the stated purposes of the federal charter 
school program. National evaluation is a process whereby federal 
bureaucrats determine which are the best education practices, leading 
to a federally-approved set of ``best practices'' for charter schools. 
Over time, charter schools will face pressure, perhaps applied by 
future Congresses, to adopt those practices favored by the federal 
government. Language in this bill giving the Secretary of Education the 
power to make grants based on how well charter schools meet the 
academic performance requirements guarantees an increasing level of 
uniformity among the nation's charter schools. This may extend as far 
as federal control, or at least ``oversight,'' of the curriculum 
offered by charter schools!
  Defenders of this bill may point out that the statute specifies the 
review and evaluation of charter schools to determine how well the 
charter school meets or exceeds state performance standards. However, 
it is unlikely that any state seeking federal funds would set standards 
different from those favored by the federal educrats. Furthermore, 
states applying for federal funds for charter schools must describe to 
the Secretary the goals of charter schools and the means by which 
charter schools will be evaluated by the state, as well as the 
curriculum and instructional practices to be used by the states charter 
schools, thus giving the Secretary another means by which to impose a 
uniform federal model of charter schools.
  This bill further centralizes education by ratifying the increase of 
federal expenditures for charter schools to one-hundred million dollars 
contained in this year's budget and ``such sums as necessary for each 
of the four succeeding fiscal years.'' An authorization of ``such sums 
as necessary'' gives appropriators carte blanche to increase 
appropriations every year. Since federal education programs are funded 
by taking money from hardworking American taxpayers, increasing federal 
expenditures on charter schools, or any other education program favored 
by Congress, leaves America's parents with fewer resources to educate 
their children in the way they deem fit.
  Mr. Chairman, if educational choice is to be the priority, Congress 
should support large educational tax credits for parents, such as those 
contained in the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816). Insofar as 
``he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' expanding federal education 
programs and federal education expenditures will inevitably lead to 
increased federal control. Conversely, education tax credits will 
restore parental control over education. Moreover, the tax credit 
approach is much more consistent with this Congress' stated goal of 
decentralizing education authority.
  In conclusion, this bill, while dressed up in the rhetoric of 
``fostering educational innovation and increased parental 
empowerment,'' is really yet another unconstitutional infringement upon 
the rights of states, localities, and, especially, parents to control 
education.
  Charter schools may be a valuable educational reform. However, it is 
neither the constitutional nor practical role of Congress to encourage 
states to adopt a particular reform. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues to reject this proposal and instead, work to eliminate all 
federal educational programs which interfere with education and, 
instead, return authority over education to the rightful owner--the 
American people.

[[Page H9976]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] has 9 minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez] has 16\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, when this debate started, the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle] was the first speaker, and the words that 
came out of his mouth were words that I could have spoken myself and, 
in a sense, I will speak myself at this moment. That is that I am, I 
believe, as strong a supporter of charter schools as anyone in this 
Chamber. And at the same time, I also voted against the ill-advised 
voucher proposal that we just defeated.
  I commend my Republican colleagues, who, without their support, we 
would not have been able to defeat that proposal. One of the concepts 
of why I support charter schools is that it really does work. It 
creates competition within the public school system. I see it work on a 
very practical basis in the State of Florida in my own district, the 
20th District in Broward County, FL.
  I serve on the board of a charter school. I do not know how many 
other Members in this Chamber have that distinction in their sort of 
noncongressional lives. But it is a very proud part of my public 
service that I was part of a creation of a charter school, and it is a 
school that is working and that is benefitting about 40 children in my 
district. It is doing some good things. And within the public school 
system, it is creating competition. And competition works.
  But I think if we look at the specifics of this legislation, it goes 
too far. It expands charter schools more than I think is appropriate, 
not just in Florida, not just in Broward County, but throughout the 
entire country. There are a number of specifics that have been pointed 
out that I think are important in terms of some of the problems that 
this legislation creates. One is changing from 3 to 5 years the grant 
proposal. If we want charter schools not to have that fiery 
entrepreneurship and independence that has worked, that has been 
practical, that is the way to do it.
  Again, I think it is worth mentioning, in Florida and in south 
Florida, charter schools have been bipartisan. I am on the board of a 
charter school. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] is. And 
former President Bush's son, Jeb Bush, actually started the first 
charter school in the State of Florida.
  In closing, I would remind my Republican colleagues that one size 
really does not fit all, that the Federal Government sometimes does not 
do best. I urge the defeat of this proposal as presently drafted.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2616, although 
not a perfect bill, the Charter School Amendment Act of 1997, the bill 
that we will have the opportunity to vote on very soon.
  This innovative school choice program strengthens our public school 
system. At least that is the design of it. Charter schools are public 
schools established under State laws that are created by teachers, 
parents, and other members of the community to stimulate reform within 
the public school system.
  Contrary to popular belief, charter schools do not exclusively serve 
suburban school districts. In fact, some of the most successful charter 
schools are in urban areas. Additionally, some of the schools only 
serve students with disabilities or also low-income students.
  H.R. 2616 amends the current law. It extends it from 3 to 5 years, 
although there is question about that. The extension provides 
opportunity to actually see that these programs are implemented.

                              {time}  2200

  There are some 28 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 
that enjoy the great opportunity to implement charter schools. My State 
happens to be one. In fact, my State now has chartered more charter 
schools than most of the States.
  In my district, charter schools are working. Not all of them are 
successful, but many of them are. Therefore, I would encourage other 
Members to give this legislation a chance, to support these schools, 
and to find innovation within the opportunity of public schools.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support 
of the charter schools legislation and cite two important facts about 
what is happening in my home, the State of Florida. The first is that 
there are a significant number of at-risk children, children with 
learning disabilities whose parents have advocated for the creation of 
these schools.
  The second point which I find particularly interesting is a lot of 
these schools are finding a way to succeed with a minimum amount of 
administration. In Florida that means not having assistant principals, 
not having guidance counselors, just the principal and the teachers. As 
a result of those savings from reduced administration, we have an 
average class size of about 17 students per teacher in many of these 
charter schools.
  Why is that so terribly important? Let me share with Members a story. 
There was a team of sociologists a few years ago sent into a major 
inner-city school system to study what had happened to the kids who had 
been through that school system. After a lot of study, they found a 
group of kids who had succeeded wildly. These kids had gone on to 
college while many of their peers had never finished high school, were 
succeeding professionally, and had healthy emotional lives. They traced 
it all back to one teacher.
  They found this teacher. She had retired from the school system. They 
went to her, they said, ``Ma'am, what did you do to these students? Why 
did they succeed?'' She said, ``Mister, I knew each of the kids in my 
class. I had a small class. I knew each of them had something good in 
them. I helped them find that. I knew what it was. I loved those kids. 
I helped those kids succeed.''
  That is simply one powerful example of what happens when we have 
smaller class sizes, when our teachers can give students the attention 
they need, gifted students, average students, kids at risk. This is 
simply one of the first important lessons that charter schools are 
going to teach us, important lessons that we can replicate for the 
entire public school system to help all our kids in public schools 
succeed because of the innovation that we are going to be encouraging 
in charter schools.
  Charter schools is a long overdue reform this Congress needs to 
encourage. We need to encourage reform. We need to encourage 
innovation. We need to let the local school districts run with the 
ball. We need to encourage parents to be activists. This bill helps do 
that.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to speak for or against 
charter schools. As a matter of fact, I tend to think that I could be 
supportive of charter schools. However, for many years now, I have been 
involved in trying to stop the rip-off of our Pell grants and Stafford 
loans by private postsecondary schools. I have worked with some people 
on the opposite side of the aisle.
  Well, lo and behold I have discovered in the Los Angeles area some 
wise crook has found a way to rip off this charter school. Let me tell 
Members what they have done. An organization that is organized as a 
nonprofit charter school has a relationship with the Victorville School 
District out in the desert near San Bernardino. They have come into the 
inner cities from Victorville, this Cato Institute, which has the 
relationship with Victorville, and it has gone to the already private 
schools in Los Angeles where my grandson is enrolled in one of these 
private schools, and have worked out an arrangement with the owners of 
the school to allow these children to be signed up to the Victorville 
School District by way of the Cato Institute. Of course, the dollars 
that are derived from the Victorville School District

[[Page H9977]]

are being shared through the Cato Institute with the private schools. 
My grandson and the other children remain in the private schools, their 
parents are paying tuition fee for them every month, so now what we 
have is we have government funds going through the charter school to 
help support private students.
  We cannot have that. I do not know how this has happened. She has 
checked with the State of California. They said nothing that they know 
of envisioned this kind of thing happening, but it is what I worry 
about, when we allow the proliferation of any kind of school, whether 
it is charter schools or what have you, I worry about the crooks being 
able to come in and take advantage.
  In this case, there is no reason why the government should be paying 
for my grandson whose mother is paying for him in private school. But 
this institute is getting the money from the Victorville School 
District, and sharing it per pupil with this private school, and 
promising that they will support them with resource materials, a 
sophisticated library access and maybe even computers. This is wrong, 
it is not right, and this is not what I think you intended for the 
charter schools.
  I have talked with the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] about 
it. I want to fix it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding to me.
  She is correct. She was kind enough to approach me with her concerns. 
We have promised on this side to look into them, but I forgot to ask 
the gentlewoman, I guess, a pretty basic question; that is, does she 
know if this particular charter school in Victorville, California 
receives any Federal taxpayer funding?
  Ms. WATERS. I do not know.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, it is purely coincidental that I stand 
here following the statement of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters], because the gentlewoman and I have worked together on the 
questions of scam technical schools and the default levels.
  I can pledge absolutely to the gentlewoman from California that we 
will work together on this, but I do not think that that issue alone 
should defeat this question of charter schools, because I think the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has asked the correct question. 
We do not know whether that is under California law solely or whether 
it has to do with the Federal connection.
  In any case, I believe as I read this legislation and whatever 
mutually acceptable amendments or language the gentlewoman and I could 
put in here to clarify it would deal with that question. But I think 
this accountability requirement, as I see this as one of the strongest 
parts of this legislation, is that it has quite explicit accountability 
standards both from the Federal level to the State level and down to 
the local autonomous group. I think it is a wonderful, creative, 
innovative way to bring parents, highly-trained professionals and the 
local communities to bettering children's education while at the same 
time maintaining accountability for standards.
  But there is a question about how these charters are being handled in 
the State of California, or New Jersey, for that matter. To my 
knowledge, we have not had that problem in New Jersey, and we have been 
rather innovative ourselves.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, my intent is not to defeat the legislation. 
My intent is to surface this problem that I have run into in 
California. Even if they are not receiving Federal assistance, I do not 
know if they are or not, you can perhaps not have this loophole in your 
legislation that would allow this kind of pass-through.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. That is very important, and I commit to that. It is 
just coincidental that my prepared remarks were going to focus on the 
accountability question with respect to educational standards. But 
certainly we have to be accountable as to how these charters are 
delivered or are presented.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Charter Schools Amendments Act 
of 1997. This legislation is a significant creative innovation to 
encourage States to look for new and creative ways to improve our 
country's schools.
  Charter schools are an intelligent way to give local authority 
maximum innovative techniques using the strengths of parental 
involvement with the highest degree of professionalism and 
accountability.
  This legislation will give priority of charter school funds to States 
that allow charter schools a high degree of autonomy over their budget 
and expenditures, allow for an increase in the number of charter 
schools from one year to the next, and include a periodic review.
  I am pleased that this legislation has placed a strong emphasis on 
accountability. The legislation gives priority to States that include a 
law that provides for periodic review by the authorized public 
chartering agency. This review is to determine whether the school is 
meeting or exceeding the academic performance requirements and goals 
for charter schools as set under the State law and the school's 
charter.
  We need this accountability in our school systems to hold someone 
responsible for improving the education that our nation's youth 
receive. To renew its charter, the school must be meeting its goals!
  Charter schools are a good step for the future. They are schools with 
regulatory flexibility, where they are released from a variety of 
regulation so the schools can have flexibility in their development, 
and can experiment with new ideas. Charter schools are able to test a 
variety of educational approaches as they commit to attaining specific 
educational results and standards.
  Charter schools have used this opening to excel in academic 
performance, parental satisfaction and involvement and teacher 
satisfaction. This past year, New Jersey granted 17 schools charters, 
including one in my district in Sussex County, New Jersey for 7th and 
8th graders, which, as it continues to grow, will use the creativity 
and energy of the community with an emphasis on integrating available 
technologies, to find a way to meet the demands and challenges of 
today's society.
  I would also like to note that this legislation reaffirms current law 
by specifically requiring that charter schools comply with Part B of 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The legislation also 
includes assurances that charter schools may not discriminate against 
children with disabilities.
  This education legislation emphasizes accountability and originality. 
It is good legislation, and it encourages programs that will create 
innovation in our school system. Now is the time for such action.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations who has spearheaded our Education at the Crossroads 
project around the country.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Let us take a look at what H.R. 2616 does. What the bill does is it 
increases funding for charter schools, reduces the amount of money that 
stays in Washington, directs the Secretary and the States to ensure 
that charter schools receive their fair share of other Federal funding 
dollars.
  As we have gone around the country, one of the things that we have 
experienced when we have taken a look at charter schools is that 
charter schools seem in too many cases not to be getting their fair 
share of Federal dollars, so we are addressing that issue, and it also 
then amends title VI so that in this program, money that is used for 
professional development, computers and technology, curriculum 
development and magnet schools, that there is now one more use that is 
allowed. If a local school district or a State wants to use the money, 
they can use it for charter schools.
  Why is this so important? As we have gone around the country, we have 
visited around 13 States, 15 different field hearings. Charter schools 
is an experiment that many of the States are working on to improve 
education for our children. In every State it is slightly different. 
What this says is we want to encourage this development at the State 
level. We want to support this innovation.
  We have seen charter schools in California, we have seen them in 
Arizona,

[[Page H9978]]

we saw them in Delaware, we have seen them in Michigan, we have seen 
different types and experimentation of similar types of programs in 
Wisconsin and Ohio. There is a lot of innovation going on, and this 
really is a fundamental role where the Federal Government maybe does 
have a legitimate place in being involved in saying, this is a research 
effort, we need to fund this research effort, we need to learn from 
this process, and we then need to share this learning and understanding 
with the other States and become kind of a clearinghouse so that other 
people can see and learn from what we are finding around the country.
  As I have said, we have gone around the country. We have seen so many 
exciting things in education. We have seen in some of the toughest 
school districts in some of the toughest parts of the country, we have 
seen real improvement, because States have empowered people at the 
local level to do what they feel needs to be done at the local level.
  Charter schools along with some of these other experiments is 
something that the Federal Government should be supporting, something 
that we should be encouraging, and something that we should be learning 
from and then disseminating the information around the country so that 
other local school districts and States can learn from it and put 
together the most effective education package for that local community 
and for that State.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Martinez] for yielding me this time. I would just like to say in regard 
to the people watching C-SPAN at this time of night that there is no 
more important issue that we could be working on in this Congress as 
education. Education firmly on the part of the American people is the 
single most important issue.
  Why are charter schools the most important issue that we are working 
on at 10:15 tonight? Because people want public school choice. They 
want every single school in America improved so they are proud to send 
their child to that school, and that child gets a solid education for 
the workplace or to go to college in their life later on down the road. 
That there is accountability in charter schools.
  There are great performing schools in America today, and there are 
some schools that are not doing as good as they should be. In charter 
schools, we are giving the schools the ability to shut down poorly 
performing schools.

                              {time}  2215

  Third, they are about innovation, they are about bold ideas, they are 
about new curriculum, longer school days and longer school years. There 
are options, charter school right here in Washington, DC, that are 
serving 100 percent of their students that are eligible for free and 
reduced lunches, it is 100 percent minority, and they are graduating 
their students at a 20 percent higher rate than the DC public school 
system.
  This has been a lot of hard work in putting this bill together, and I 
would just like to conclude by again thanking the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] for the bipartisan support, thanking my staff 
member, Gina Mahoney, who has put in countless hours and has shown just 
real commitment to the legislation and an understanding of the 
legislation. She has sought out experts from across America to work and 
gain common sense on this legislation from California to New York.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this good 
bipartisan education bill for the United States of America.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me indicate to my colleague from California that I believe I have 
the right to close debate and intend to close debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle] my good friend, the vice chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just first say that support for 
charter schools which truly are innovative and truly can change 
education in America is extremely rewarding and well placed, and I 
would also like to say that I agree with the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Roemer] with respect to bipartisanship on education matters and 
for children in general. When is the last time we saw a 6-year-old who 
thought he was a Republican or a Democrat? We need to help those kids 
in every way we can.
  Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for their 
exceptional work on this, and Mr. Riggs in particular for the 
extraordinary work that he has done on this committee to try to advance 
the causes of education.
  We need more of this in the Congress of the United States. I think 
this has been an exemplary piece of legislation, the way it has been 
managed and handled, and for that reason I hope we can all support it 
and pass it when the time comes.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just briefly before I yield back the balance of my 
time, I will say that several of the speakers have spoken about some of 
the concerns they have about the bill, and there will be amendments 
offered, it is an open rule, and I am glad for that. We will get a 
chance to debate some of those amendments. Hopefully, some of those 
amendments will be accepted so that we can really get truly a 
bipartisan, more than just a few on this side, but as many people as 
possible, because the basic concept is very good, and I would hope that 
it would be amended to a point where I could support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time simply to 
point out that I think that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] 
mentioned a charter school here in the District of Columbia. As we 
mentioned before, they are really sprouting up everywhere around the 
country. If my colleagues have not had an opportunity to go visit a 
charter school, ideally, obviously, one in the district, but, if not, 
another one nearby or in an adjacent community, I strongly encourage my 
colleagues to do so because they are hotbeds of learning. It is 
incredible. One cannot be in a charter school for more than a few 
minutes without sensing the excitement about learning; it is 
contagious.
  I also noticed that a couple weeks ago, I believe it was USA Today, 
or not USA Today, Parade magazine, as part of the Sunday supplement, as 
my colleagues know, in the Sunday newspaper, they have a reporter who 
has a fifth-grade, has a teaching credential and has experience as a 
fifth-grade classroom teacher, and they sent her on an unusual 
assignment. She went on an assignment around the country working as a 
substitute in local school districts in five or six different 
communities across the country and then wrote about her experiences in 
Parade magazine, and she cited a charter school in Boston by the name 
of The Renaissance School as the best individual school that she had 
visited in the course of this assignment.
  Why did she say that? Because she said at this school parents, 
teachers, and students are truly excited about learning. She talked 
about the fact that they have longer school hours there than 
traditional public schools. The children, through the charter school, 
each receive a computer, and the charter school goes beyond that and 
helps every family acquire and install a computer in the household at 
this particular school. And she cited it again in terms of the 
curriculum, the structure, the discipline, as the single best fifth-
grade classroom and the single best classroom that she had visited 
around the entire country, and I will later, when I get a copy of the 
actual article, introduce that for the Record. But to me, that pretty 
much says it all about charter schools.
  So, colleagues, here is an opportunity to do something on a positive 
bipartisan basis to expand choice for parents, to increase Federal 
taxpayer funding for public school choice by helping in the startup and 
creation of more charter schools around the country.
  This legislation is truly commendable, it deserves support, and 
therefore I urge my colleagues that once we complete the amendment 
process, whenever that might be, later tonight or

[[Page H9979]]

later this week, to support the bipartisan Riggs-Roemer Community 
Design Charter Schools Amendments Act of 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, parents across the nation want greater 
control of their children's education and greater accountability from 
their children's schools. Parents must be able to send their children 
to safe, quality schools that reinforce the lessons of responsibility 
and respect that they try so hard to teach at home.
  Charter schools are innovative public schools that, once freed from 
burdensome regulations, have made great strides in improving and 
reforming public education. Today, we consider H.R. 2616, the Charter 
Schools Amendments Act. This measure will direct much-needed new money 
to states that provide character schools with a high degree of fiscal 
autonomy, allow increases in the number of charter schools from year to 
year and ensure academic accountability. In addition, this bill ensures 
that 95 percent of federal charter schools' money goes to the state and 
local levels.
  Mr. Speaker, some will argue that charter schools would skim the best 
students from public schools. However, when you consider that 55 
percent of U.S. charter school students in 1995-1996 were poor, 63 
percent were minority-group members, 19 percent had limited English 
proficiency, and almost one in five had disabilities, I'd say their 
arguments have very little merit.
  According to the Department of Education, the most significant 
problem faced by charter schools in 1997 was a lack of start-up funds. 
H.R. 2616 increases charter schools funding from $51 million in FY97 to 
$100 million in FY98 and expands the list of activities the newly 
authorized money can be used for to include start-up funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I am committed to ensuring that every child has the same 
opportunities to thrive and succeed. The Charter Schools Amendments Act 
will give more children a chance at future success and a shot at the 
American Dream. It's the least they deserve and I will work to provide 
our children with a top-quality education. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support H.R. 2616, the Charter Schools Amendments Act.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Charter 
Schools Amendments, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
bill.
  This bill represents the strategy we should be taking--investing in 
our public school system to strengthen the schools that 90 percent of 
American children attend. Charter schools are an innovative means to 
change our public schools for the better, without siphoning off funds 
to private or parochial schools.
  The two charter schools in my home town of New Haven--Common Ground 
High School and the Village Academy--have proven to be highly effective 
in improving student performance. They give parents a real opportunity 
for school choice. The schools are held to high standards and in fact 
are reviewed periodically to ensure that students are meeting their 
goals. This type of accountability is exactly what we need to improve 
our students' performance.
  Unfortunately, Republicans don't always follow the policy of 
investing in public schools. Time and time again they have voted to 
take money out of our public schools and put it into private and 
parochial schools. I am particularly disappointed that this bill will 
be combined with the Gingrich voucher experiment--virtually 
guaranteeing a veto by a President who has promised to protect 
America's public schools.
  Vouchers are not the way to strengthen our public school system. 
Innovative programs like charter schools will allow us to continue our 
investment in America's public schools without deserting our children.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2616

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Charter Schools Amendments 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC 2. INNOVATIVE CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 6201(a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) support for planning, designing, and initial 
     implementation of charter schools as described in part C of 
     title X; and''; and
       (2) in section 6301(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) planning, designing, and initial implementation of 
     charter schools as described in part C of title X; and''.

     SEC. 3. CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       Part C of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:

                    ``PART C--PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

     ``SEC. 10301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) enhancement of parent and student choices among 
     public schools can assist in promoting comprehensive 
     educational reform and give more students the opportunity to 
     learn to challenging State content standards and challenging 
     State student performance standards, if sufficiently 
     diverse and high-quality choices, and genuine 
     opportunities to take advantage of such choices, are 
     available to all students;
       ``(2) useful examples of such choices can come from States 
     and communities that experiment with methods of offering 
     teachers and other educators, parents, and other members of 
     the public the opportunity to design and implement new public 
     schools and to transform existing public schools;
       ``(3) charter schools are a mechanism for testing a variety 
     of educational approaches and should, therefore, be exempted 
     from restrictive rules and regulations if the leadership of 
     such schools commits to attaining specific and ambitious 
     educational results for educationally disadvantaged students 
     consistent with challenging State content standards and 
     challenging State student performance standards for all 
     students;
       ``(4) charter schools, as such schools have been 
     implemented in a few States, can embody the necessary mixture 
     of enhanced choice, exemption from restrictive regulations, 
     and a focus on learning gains;
       ``(5) charter schools, including charter schools that are 
     schools-within-schools, can help reduce school size, which 
     can have a significant effect on student achievement;
       ``(6) the Federal Government should test, evaluate, and 
     disseminate information on a variety of charter school models 
     in order to help demonstrate the benefits of this promising 
     educational reform; and
       ``(7) there is a strong documented need for cash-flow 
     assistance to charter schools that are starting up, because 
     State and local operating revenue streams are not immediately 
     available.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are--
       ``(1) to provide financial assistance for the planning, 
     design, initial implementation of charter schools;
       ``(2) to facilitate the ability of States and localities to 
     increase the number of charter schools in the Nation to not 
     less than 3,000 by the year 2000; and
       ``(3) to evaluate the effects of charter schools, including 
     the effects on students, student achievement, staff, and 
     parents.

     ``SEC. 10302. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants to State 
     educational agencies having applications approved pursuant to 
     section 10303 to enable such agencies to conduct a charter 
     school grant program in accordance with this part.
       ``(b) Special Rule.--If a State educational agency elects 
     not to participate in the program authorized by this part or 
     does not have an application approved under section 10303, 
     the Secretary may award a grant to an eligible applicant that 
     serves such State and has an application approved pursuant to 
     section 10303.
       ``(c) Program Periods.--
       ``(1) Grants to states.--
       ``(A) Basic grants.--Grants awarded to State educational 
     agencies under this part for planning, design, or initial 
     implementation of charter schools, shall be awarded for a 
     period of not more than 5 years.
       ``(B) Extension.--Any eligible applicant that has received 
     a grant or subgrant under this part prior to October 1, 1997, 
     shall be eligible to receive an additional grant for a period 
     not to exceed 2 years in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Grants to eligible applicants.--
       ``(A) Basic grants.--Grants awarded by the Secretary to 
     eligible applicants or subgrants awarded by State educational 
     agencies to eligible applicants under this part shall be 
     awarded for planning, design, or initial implementation of 
     charter schools, for a period not to exceed more than 5 
     years, of which the eligible applicant may use--
       ``(i) not more than 30 months for planning and program 
     design; and
       ``(ii) not more than 4 years for the initial implementation 
     of a charter school.
       ``(B) Extension.--Any eligible applicant that has received 
     a grant or subgrant under this part prior to October 1, 1997, 
     shall be eligible to receive an additional grant for a period 
     not to exceed 2 years in accordance with this section.
       ``(d) Limitation.--Except as otherwise provided under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall not award more than one 
     grant and State educational agencies shall not award more 
     than one subgrant under this part to support a particular 
     charter school.
       ``(e) Priority and Requirements.--
       ``(1) Priority.--

[[Page H9980]]

       ``(A) Fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.--In awarding 
     grants under this part for any of the fiscal years 1998, 
     1999, and 2000 from funds appropriated under section 10310 
     that are in excess of $51,000,000 for the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to State educational agencies 
     in accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) Succeeding fiscal years.--In awarding grants under 
     this part for fiscal year 2001 or any succeeding fiscal year 
     from any funds appropriated under section 10310, the 
     Secretary shall consider the number of charter schools in 
     each State and shall give priority to State educational 
     agencies in accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) Priority order.--In awarding grants under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary shall, in the order 
     listed, give priority to a State that--
       ``(i) meets all requirements of paragraph (2);
       ``(ii) meets 2 requirements of paragraph (2); and
       ``(iii) meets 1 requirement of paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(C) are as follows:
       ``(A) The State law regarding charter schools ensures that 
     each charter school has a high degree of autonomy over its 
     budgets and expenditures.
       ``(B) The State law regarding charter schools provides that 
     not less than 1 chartering authority in the State allows for 
     an increase in the number of charter schools from 1 year to 
     the next year; and
       ``(C) The State law regarding charter schools provides for 
     periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public 
     chartering agency of each charter school to determine whether 
     the school is meeting or exceeding the academic performance 
     requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth under 
     State law or the school's charter.

     ``SEC. 10303. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Applications From State Agencies.--Each State 
     educational agency desiring a grant from the Secretary under 
     this part shall submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(b) Contents of a State Educational Agency Application.--
     Each application submitted pursuant to subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) describe the objectives of the State educational 
     agency's charter school grant program and a description of 
     how such objectives will be fulfilled, including steps taken 
     by the State educational agency to inform teachers, parents, 
     and communities of the State educational agency's charter 
     school grant program;
       ``(2) describe how the State educational agency will inform 
     each charter school of available Federal programs and funds 
     that each such school is eligible to receive and ensure that 
     each such school receives its appropriate share of Federal 
     education funds allocated by formula; and
       ``(3) contain assurances that the State educational agency 
     will require each eligible applicant desiring to receive a 
     subgrant to submit an application to the State educational 
     agency containing--
       ``(A) a description of the educational program to be 
     implemented by the proposed charter school, including--
       ``(i) how the program will enable all students to meet 
     challenging State student performance standards;
       ``(ii) the grade levels or ages of children to be served; 
     and
       ``(iii) the curriculum and instructional practices to be 
     used;
       ``(B) a description of how the charter school will be 
     managed;
       ``(C) a description of--
       ``(i) the objectives of the charter school; and
       ``(ii) the methods by which the charter school will 
     determine its progress toward achieving those objectives;
       ``(D) a description of the administrative relationship 
     between the charter school and the authorized public 
     chartering agency;
       ``(E) a description of how parents and other members of the 
     community will be involved in the design and implementation 
     of the charter school;
       ``(F) a description of how the authorized public chartering 
     agency will provide for continued operation of the school 
     once the Federal grant has expired, if such agency determines 
     that the school has met the objectives described in 
     subparagraph (C)(i);
       ``(G) a request and justification for waivers of any 
     Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the applicant 
     believes are necessary for the successful operation of the 
     charter school, and a description of any State or local 
     rules, generally applicable to public schools, that will be 
     waived for, or otherwise not apply to, the school;
       ``(H) a description of how the subgrant funds or grant 
     funds, as appropriate, will be used, including a description 
     of how such funds will be used in conjunction with other 
     Federal programs administered by the Secretary;
       ``(I) a description of how students in the community will 
     be--
       ``(i) informed about the charter school; and
       ``(ii) given an equal opportunity to attend the charter 
     school;
       ``(J) an assurance that the eligible applicant will 
     annually provide the Secretary and the State educational 
     agency such information as may be required to determine if 
     the charter school is making satisfactory progress toward 
     achieving the objectives described in subparagraph (C)(i);
       ``(K) an assurance that the applicant will cooperate with 
     the Secretary and the State educational agency in evaluating 
     the program assisted under this part;
       ``(L) such other information and assurances as the 
     Secretary and the State educational agency may require; and
       ``(4) describe how the State educational agency will 
     disseminate best or promising practices of charter schools in 
     such State to each local educational agency in the State.
       ``(c) Contents of Eligible Applicant Application.--Each 
     eligible applicant desiring a grant pursuant to section 10302 
     shall submit an application to the State educational agency 
     or Secretary, respectively, at such time, in such manner, and 
     accompanied by such information as the State educational 
     agency or Secretary, respectively, may reasonably require.
       ``(d) Contents of Application.--Each application submitted 
     pursuant to subsection (c) shall contain--
       ``(1) the information and assurances described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (L) of subsection (b)(3), except 
     that for purposes of this subsection subparagraphs (J), (K), 
     and (L) of such subsection shall be applied by striking `and 
     the State educational agency' each place such term appears; 
     and
       ``(2) assurances that the State educational agency--
       ``(A) will grant, or will obtain, waivers of State 
     statutory or regulatory requirements; and
       ``(B) will assist each subgrantee in the State in receiving 
     a waiver under section 10304(e).

     ``SEC. 10304. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Selection Criteria for State Educational Agencies.--
     The Secretary shall award grants to State educational 
     agencies under this part on the basis of the quality of the 
     applications submitted under section 10303(b), after taking 
     into consideration such factors as--
       ``(1) the contribution that the charter schools grant 
     program will make to assisting educationally disadvantaged 
     and other students to achieving State content standards and 
     State student performance standards and, in general, a 
     State's education improvement plan;
       ``(2) the degree of flexibility afforded by the State 
     educational agency to charter schools under the State's 
     charter schools law;
       ``(3) the ambitiousness of the objectives for the State 
     charter school grant program;
       ``(4) the quality of the strategy for assessing achievement 
     of those objectives;
       ``(5) the likelihood that the charter school grant program 
     will meet those objectives and improve educational results 
     for students; and
       ``(6) the number of charter schools created under this part 
     in the State.
       ``(b) Selection Criteria for Eligible Applicants.--The 
     Secretary shall award grants to eligible applicants under 
     this part on the basis of the quality of the applications 
     submitted under section 10303(c), after taking into 
     consideration such factors as--
       (1) the quality of the proposed curriculum and 
     instructional practices;
       ``(2) the degree of flexibility afforded by the State 
     educational agency and, if applicable, the local educational 
     agency to the charter school;
       ``(3) the extent of community support for the application;
       ``(4) the ambitiousness of the objectives for the charter 
     school;
       ``(5) the quality of the strategy for assessing achievement 
     of those objectives; and
       ``(6) the likelihood that the charter school will meet 
     those objectives and improve educational results for 
     students.
       ``(c) Peer Review.--The Secretary, and each State 
     educational agency receiving a grant under this part, shall 
     use a peer review process to review applications for 
     assistance under this part.
       ``(d) Diversity of Projects.--The Secretary and each State 
     educational agency receiving a grant under this part, shall 
     award subgrants under this part in a manner that, to the 
     extent possible, ensures that such grants and subgrants--
       ``(1) are distributed throughout different areas of the 
     Nation and each State, including urban and rural areas; and
       ``(2) will assist charter schools representing a variety of 
     educational approaches, such as approaches designed to reduce 
     school size.
       ``(e) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive any statutory or 
     regulatory requirement over which the Secretary exercises 
     administrative authority except any such requirement relating 
     to the elements of a charter school described in section 
     10309(1), if--
       ``(1) the waiver is requested in an approved application 
     under this part; and
       ``(2) the Secretary determines that granting such a waiver 
     will promote the purpose of this part.
       ``(f) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) State educational agencies.--Each State educational 
     agency receiving a grant under this part shall use such grant 
     funds to award subgrants to one or more eligible applicants 
     in the State to enable such applicant to plan and implement a 
     charter school in accordance with this part.
       ``(2) Eligible applicants.--Each eligible applicant 
     receiving funds from the Secretary or a State educational 
     agency shall use such funds to plan and implement a charter 
     school in accordance with this part.
       ``(3) Allowable activities for basic grants.--An eligible 
     applicant receiving a basic grant or subgrant under section 
     10302(c)(2) may use the grant or subgrant funds only for--
       ``(A) post-award planning and design of the educational 
     program, which may include--
       ``(i) refinement of the desired educational results and of 
     the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those 
     results; and
       ``(ii) professional development of teachers and other staff 
     who will work in the charter school; and
       ``(B) initial implementation of the charter school, which 
     may include--
       ``(i) informing the community about the school;
       ``(ii) acquiring necessary equipment and educational 
     materials and supplies;

[[Page H9981]]

       ``(iii) acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and
       ``(iv) other initial operational costs that cannot be met 
     from State or local sources.
       ``(4) Administrative expenses.--Each State educational 
     agency receiving a grant pursuant to this part may reserve 
     not more than 5 percent of such grant funds for 
     administrative expenses associated with the charter school 
     grant program assisted under this part.

     ``SEC. 10305. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``The Secretary shall reserve for each fiscal year the 
     lesser of 5 percent of the amount appropriated to carry out 
     this part for the fiscal year or $5,000,000, to carry out, 
     giving highest priority to carrying paragraph (2), the 
     following:
       ``(1) To provide charter schools, either directly or 
     through the State educational agency, with information 
     regarding available education funds that such school is 
     eligible to receive, and assistance in applying for Federal 
     education funds which are allocated by formula, including 
     filing deadlines and submission of applications; and
       ``(2) To provide, through 1 or more contracts using a 
     competitive bidding process--
       ``(A) charter schools with assistance in accessing private 
     capital;
       ``(B) pilot projects in a variety of States to better 
     understand and improve access to private capital by charter 
     schools; and
       ``(C) collection on a nationwide basis, of information 
     regarding successful programs that access private capital for 
     charter schools and disseminate any such relevant information 
     and model descriptions to all charter schools.
       ``(3) To provide for the completion of the 4-year national 
     study (which began in 1995) of charter schools and any 
     related evaluations or studies.
       ``(4)(A) To provide information to applicants for 
     assistance under this part;
       ``(B) assistance to applicants for assistance under this 
     part with the preparation of applications under section 
     10303;
       ``(C) assistance in the planning and startup of charter 
     schools;
       ``(D) ongoing training and technical assistance to existing 
     charter schools; and
       ``(E) for the dissemination of best practices in charter 
     schools to other public schools.

     ``SEC. 10306. PART A, TITLE I ALLOCATION DURING FIRST YEAR 
                   AND FOR SUCCESSIVE ENROLLMENT EXPANSIONS.

       ``For purposes of the allocation to schools by the States 
     or their agencies of funds under part A of title I, or of any 
     other Federal educational assistance funds, the Secretary and 
     each State educational agency shall take such measures not 
     later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     part as are necessary to ensure that every charter 
     school receives the Federal funding for which it is 
     eligible in the calendar year in which it first opens, 
     notwithstanding the fact that the identity and 
     characteristics of the students enrolling in that school 
     are not fully and completely determined until that school 
     actually opens. These measures shall similarly ensure that 
     every charter school expanding its enrollment in any 
     subsequent year of operation receives the Federal funding 
     for which it is eligible during the calendar year of such 
     expansion.

     ``SEC. 10307. RECORDS TRANSFER.

       ``State and local educational agencies, to the extent 
     practicable, shall ensure that a student's records and if 
     applicable a student's individualized education program as 
     defined in section 602(11) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401(11)), are 
     transferred to the charter school upon transfer of a student 
     to a charter school in accordance with applicable State law.

     ``SEC. 10308. PAPERWORK REDUCTION.

       ``To the extent practicable, the Secretary and each 
     authorized public chartering agency, shall ensure that 
     implementation of this part results in a minimum of paperwork 
     for any eligible applicant or charter school.

     ``SEC. 10309. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this part:
       ``(1) The term `charter school' means a public school 
     that--
       ``(A) in accordance with a specific State charter school 
     statute, is exempted from significant State or local rules 
     that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public 
     schools, but not from any rules relating to the other 
     requirements of this paragraph;
       ``(B) is created by a developer as a public school, or is 
     adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is 
     operated under public supervision and direction;
       ``(C) operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational 
     objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to 
     by the authorized public chartering agency;
       ``(D) provides a program of elementary or secondary 
     education, or both;
       ``(E) is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, 
     employment practices, and all other operations, and is not 
     affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;
       ``(F) does not charge tuition;
       ``(G) complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 
     title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the 
     Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and part B of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act;
       ``(H) is a school to which parents choose to send their 
     children, and that admits students on the basis of a lottery, 
     if more students apply for admission than can be 
     accommodated;
       ``(I) agrees to comply with the same Federal and State 
     audit requirements as do other elementary and secondary 
     schools in the State, unless such requirements are 
     specifically waived for the purpose of this program;
       ``(J) meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health 
     and safety requirements;
       ``(K) operates in accordance with State law; and
       ``(L) has a written performance contract with the 
     authorized public chartering agency in the State.
       ``(2) The term `developer' means an individual or group of 
     individuals (including a public or private nonprofit 
     organization), which may include teachers, administrators and 
     other school staff, parents, or other members of the local 
     community in which a charter school project will be carried 
     out.
       ``(3) The term `eligible applicant' means an authorized 
     public chartering agency participating in a partnership with 
     a developer to establish a charter school in accordance with 
     this part.
       ``(4) The term `authorized public chartering agency' means 
     a State educational agency, local educational agency, or 
     other public entity that has the authority pursuant to State 
     law and approved by the Secretary to authorize or approve a 
     charter school.

     ``SEC. 10310. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1998 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the four 
     succeeding fiscal years.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 105-357 
if offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] or his 
designee. That amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for a division of the question.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule which the Chair just 
recited, I offer an amendment printed in the report.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is this the Goodling amendment?
  Mr. RIGGS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from California the designee of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]?
  Mr. RIGGS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Riggs:
       Page 12, strike lines 15 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(4) describe how the State educational agency will use 
     administrative funds provided under section 10304(f)(4) to 
     disseminate best or promising practices of charter schools in 
     such State to each local educational agency in the State, 
     except that such dissemination shall result, to the extent 
     practicable, in a minimum of paperwork for a State 
     educational agency, eligible applicant, or charter school.''.
       Page 18, line 7, insert ``out'' after ``carrying''.
       Beginning on page 19, strike line 17 and all that follows 
     through page 20, line 9, and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 10306. FEDERAL FORMULA ALLOCATION DURING FIRST YEAR 
                   AND FOR SUCCESSIVE ENROLLMENT EXPANSIONS.

       ``For purposes of the allocation to schools by the States 
     or their agencies of funds under Part A of title I, and any 
     other Federal funds which the Secretary allocates to States 
     on a formula basis, the Secretary and each State educational 
     agency shall take such measures not later than 6 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this part as are necessary to 
     ensure that every charter school receives the Federal funding 
     for which it is eligible not later than 5 months after first 
     opening, notwithstanding the fact that the identity and 
     characteristics of the students enrolling in that school are 
     not fully and completely determined until that school 
     actually opens. These measures shall similarly ensure that 
     every charter school expanding its enrollment in any 
     subsequent year of operation receives the Federal funding for 
     which it is eligible not later than 5 months of such 
     expansion.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 288, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H9982]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].


             Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding, I ask unanimous consent 
to modify the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Riggs:
       Page 5, line 23, strike ``eligible applicant'' and insert 
     ``State educational agency''.
       Page 12, strike lines 15 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(4) describe how the State educational agency will use 
     administrative funds provided under section 10304(f)(4) to 
     disseminate best or promising practices of charter schools in 
     such State to each local educational agency in the State, 
     except that such dissemination shall result, to the extent 
     practicable, in a minimum of paperwork for a State 
     educational agency, eligible applicant, or charter school.''.
       Page 18, line 7, insert ``out'' after ``carrying''.
       Beginning on page 19, strike line 17 and all that follows 
     through page 20, line 9, and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 10306. FEDERAL FORMULA ALLOCATION DURING FIRST YEAR 
                   AND FOR SUCCESSIVE ENROLLMENT EXPANSIONS.

       ``For purposes of the allocation to schools by the States 
     or their agencies of funds under part A of title I, and any 
     other Federal funds which the Secretary allocates to States 
     on a formula basis, the Secretary and each State educational 
     agency shall take such measures not later than 6 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this part as are necessary to 
     ensure that every charter school receives the Federal funding 
     for which it is eligible not later than 5 months after first 
     opening, notwithstanding the fact that the identity and 
     characteristics of the students enrolling in that school are 
     not fully and completely determined until that school 
     actually opens. These measures shall similarly ensure that 
     every charter school expanding its enrollment in any 
     subsequent year of operation receives the Federal funding for 
     which it is eligible not later than 5 months after such 
     expansion.''.

  Mr. RIGGS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the modification be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] that the amendment be modified?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could the 
gentleman from California explain the modification?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I believe the modification is very technical 
in nature, but if the gentleman wants a more detailed explanation, we 
will have to, I guess, hear the Clerk explain it.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with my 5 minutes, let me see if I can 
just alert the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] that if he happens 
to be present, I would yield to him, and while we are perhaps looking 
for him, let me just explain very quickly to my good friend that my 
manager's package of amendments contains one technical amendment, two 
clarifying amendments.
  The first clarifying amendment refines the language of an amendment 
that was accepted at the full committee markup. The amendment accepted 
in committee requires State education agencies to disseminate best or 
most promising practices of charter schools to local education agencies 
in that State, and the amendment also stipulates that the SEA, the 
State Education Agencies, can only use Federal charter school money to 
disseminate best or most promising practices from the 5 percent that 
they are permitted to retain for administrative purposes.
  Further, my amendment requires that the dissemination of best or, 
again, most promising practices shall result in a minimum of paperwork 
for SEA and charter schools. The last thing we are trying to do is 
cause them more red tape or paperwork, and the amendment clarifies the 
language in the reported bill that directs the Secretary to take 
measures to ensure that charter schools receive the Federal funds for 
which they are eligible in their first year of operation.
  In response to concerns expressed by some committee members, the 
amendment changes the time by which a charter school should receive 
their Federal money from, I quote now, within the calendar year to, 
again, quote, within 5 months in which the school first opens.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, given the rather fractious debate we have had 
this evening with regard to how we educate our kids in this Nation, I 
think we would all do well to return to a basic principle, a principle 
best articulated by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote that every child 
must be encouraged to get as much education as she has the ability to 
take. We want this not only for her sake, but for the Nation's sake.
  Mr. Chairman, Jefferson did not use the words, ``a few,'' or 
``several,'' or even ``many.'' He used the word ``every,'' every child, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Charter schools, and I must applaud the leadership of the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and his hard work in certainly reaching 
across the aisle to attract bipartisan support. Charter schools provide 
these opportunities. They are public schools, Mr. Chairman, schools 
accountable to public authorities but with the kind of local level 
autonomy that spurs innovation and excellence. Charter schools are part 
of a common sense solution to some of the problems facing and 
confronting parents and teachers and communities in America. They are 
not a panacea for all that ails our school system, for they will not 
solve our $112 billion infrastructure problem, the technology gap, or 
the resolve, the standards issue, but they do represent a very 
important step toward improvement.
  At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow our zeal for change 
to overtake our common sense. Charter schools and vouchers ought not to 
be part of the same conversation. Public choice encouraged by charters 
is one thing; vouchers, Mr. Chairman, are entirely another.
  I recognize that some of my colleagues, particularly those on the 
other side of the aisle, however well intentioned, have been operating 
under the misapprehension that competition from small-scale vouchers 
will actually force public schools to improve. But unless every one of 
our Nation's nearly 50 million public school students is given a 
voucher, it hardly seems likely that public schools will be forced to 
improve.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, it seems a much more practical way, 
charter schools, to improve education for the majority of our Nation's 
students. That is exactly what charter schools do, which is why I 
support H.R. 2616 but did not support H.R. 2746, and I am proud to say 
neither did this House.
  Again, let Mr. Jefferson's words be our guide. Let us oppose measures 
that do not educate the majority of our kids, taking out a few. Let us 
support the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman from 
California's [Mr. Riggs] charter schools amendment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the amendment is simply technical in 
nature, and as a result, we have no objections on this side.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Hansen] having assumed the chair, Mr.

[[Page H9983]]

Snowbarger, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 2616), to amend titles VI and X of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve and expand 
charter schools, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________