[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10182-H10200]
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

[[Page H10183]]

XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2616.

                              {time}  1053


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
November 4, 1997, the amendment printed in the House Report 105-357 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], as modified, had 
been disposed of.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman I am very pleased that we can be returning to work in 
the House on bipartisan legislation that I have coauthored and 
cosponsored with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Before we begin the amendment process, I would like to remind my 
colleagues that this legislation, the community-designed Charter 
Schools Amendments Act, is designed to, first of all, carefully direct 
new money, any increase in Federal taxpayer spending for the startup 
and creation of more charter schools, to those States that provide 
flexibility in three key areas.
  We might describe these States as those States that have strong laws 
on the books embracing the idea of public school choice and putting 
resources into expanding charter schools in order to give parents and 
guardians, the ultimate consumers of education, more choices in 
selecting the education that is appropriate for their child.
  Federal taxpayer funding for charter schools is increasing 
dramatically. In fact, in this bill the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] and I propose authorization the President's budget request to 
double taxpayer funding from $51 million in the last fiscal year to 
$100 million in this fiscal year for the startup and creation of more 
charter schools, helping us to move toward the goal of 3,000 charter 
schools nationally, as the President has espoused on several occasions.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure all these ongoing discussions on the floor 
are related to the charter schools legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, as I was about to say, we direct the new money to those 
States that, first of all, provide a high degree of fiscal autonomy to 
charter schools, States that allow for increase in the number of 
charter schools from year to year over the life of this legislation, 
and lastly, States that provide for strong, high academic 
accountability in the contract between the charter school and the 
chartering authority.
  This is a program, Mr. Chairman, that has grown from $6 million of 
Federal taxpayer funding in 1995 to $51 million in the fiscal year just 
completed to, we hope, approximately $100 million in this current 
fiscal year just begun. There are currently over 700 charter schools 
operating in the 29 States, plus the District of Columbia and the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, that have charter school laws on the 
books.
  This legislation also assures that 95 percent of the Federal taxpayer 
funding for charter schools will go to the State and local level, and 
only 5 percent will be kept behind here in Washington for ongoing 
research and evaluation as to the efficacy of charter schools, and for 
other national activities conducted by the Department of Education.
  Lastly, the legislation directs the Secretary to work with the States 
to ensure that charter schools receive their fair share of 
proportionate, that is to say, per pupil, Federal categorical aid for 
education, such as title I and special education funding.
  Some local educational agencies have been rather lukewarm toward the 
idea of charter schools, and in some cases we learned through our 
committee hearing process, and in the testimony on our legislation, the 
charter schools in those communities have not been receiving their fair 
share of Federal education dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to bring this legislation back to the floor.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, my coauthor and 
cosponsor on the bill.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take this time to remind my 
colleagues that this is bipartisan legislation. It has been a pleasure 
working with my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
on this very important legislation.
  We have spent the last couple of days talking about foreign policy, 
talking about United States-China relations. It is important that we 
discuss how we boldly reform public education in America today.
  This legislation is strongly supported by the President. President 
Clinton has been a strong advocate of charter schools. This came out of 
our committee, the Committee on Education and the Work Force, with 10 
Democrats voting for it, 8 opposed to it.
  This legislation is about public school choice, so our parents can 
send their children to good public schools, charter schools, 
alternative schools, magnet schools, and give them more choices and 
create more competition in the public school system. It is about 
schools that function with less bureaucracy and with less strings 
attached. It is about schools that try bold ideas with respect to 
curriculum and school days and partnerships with businesses and 
apprenticeship programs.

                              {time}  1100

  This is a very, very good bill. It is not the panacea, Mr. Chairman. 
It is not the silver bullet to solve all educational problems in 
America today. But it is certainly an arrow in the quiver. It is 
certainly one of the options to help us move forward and, in a 
bipartisan way, solve education problems.
  So with that, I again thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
and look forward to the debate today.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Snowbarger). Are there further amendments?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Martinez

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Martinez:
       Page 10, line 6, strike the semicolon and insert ``and to 
     participate in State assessments;''.
       Page 18, line 7, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 19, strike lines 3 through 5 and insert the following:
       ``(3) To provide for the completion of the 4-year national 
     study (which began in 1995) of charter schools and any 
     related present or future evaluations or studies which shall 
     include the evaluation of the impact of charter schools on 
     student achievement and equity, including information 
     regarding--
       ``(A) the number of students who applied for admission to 
     charter schools and the number of such students who enrolled 
     in charter schools, disaggregated on the basis of race, age, 
     family income, disability, gender, limited English 
     proficiency, and previous enrollment in a public school;
       ``(B) student achievement;
       ``(C) qualifications of school employees at the charter 
     school, including the number of teachers within a charter 
     school that have been certified or licensed by the State and 
     the turnover of the teaching force; and
       ``(D) a description of the relationship between a developer 
     (or administrator, if applicable) and any for-profit entity 
     that is involved in the development or administration of any 
     school.''.

  Mr. MARTINEZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment 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.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would redirect the 
Secretary's priority in the National Activities section toward 
evaluation rather than private capital generation for charter schools. 
The amendment would also expand upon the evaluation requirements in the 
bill to ensure that the important aspects of charter schools and their 
effectiveness on students be studied. And, also, this amendment would 
ensure that the present or future evaluations must look at those things 
that ensure that students and parents are not being denied on biased 
premises.
  The amendment would also ensure that charter schools will enable 
students to meet the challenging State

[[Page H10184]]

performance standards and participate in State assessments. We still do 
not have a comprehensive evaluation of charter schools because they 
have not been in existence that long, especially on important concerns 
like the kinds of services students receive, which students get 
enrolled and which get rejected, what the level of student achievement 
is in a given charter school. Nothing in current law requires that kind 
of detailed research information. And we need to make sure we get that 
information to make informed policy decisions regarding charter 
schools.
  This amendment at least ensures some accountability for the schools 
and for us when we authorize this program next Congress. Strong 
evaluation requirements are an accountability tool. We want to give the 
charter schools flexibility, but we do not want to give them a lack of 
responsibility. In many cases, flexibility to some people means no 
responsibility.
  Since we do not have any real requirements for evaluation under 
current law so we can get that broad, sweeping information, that does 
not give us a true and clear picture by district and by charter school 
on what is really going on there, good, bad or indifferent, especially 
with charter school student achievement, which is the claim to their 
big success.
  We have little or no reliable data today on questions concerning 
equity and student achievement with charter schools. What little data 
we have makes it really difficult to be able to tell what is really 
happening in these schools or the influence that charter schools are 
having on our respective districts. The current law gives no direction 
to the Department of Education for its studies. The most recent report 
has no desegregated data, so it is almost meaningless.
  We are not asking these charter schools anything that we would not 
ask of other public schools, accountability. This bill would require 
the Secretary, as his No. 1 priority in the completion of the bill's 
national activities, to enter into contracts to ensure private capital 
generation for charter schools. I would think that we should be 
supporting further evaluation of charter schools to gauge their 
effectiveness in educating our children, rather than forcing the 
Secretary to act like a Wall Street broker.
  We have debated on this floor that the GAO says that there is a $112 
billion need to repair to good condition, not excellent condition but 
just good condition, public schools in our Nation, which are attended 
by 90 percent of America's children. The schools are crumbling. They 
are too old to be wired for the 21st century technologies. They are 
overcrowded. It would be a slap in the face, in my estimation, for 
every student in the noncharter school to say that the Federal 
Government will help other schools but not theirs get access to that 
private capital by making sure that the No. 1 priority of the Secretary 
is to generate funds for charter schools.
  The oldest charter school, as I said earlier, is only about 6 years 
old. And there is really much to learn about what makes a successful 
charter school and how effective charter schools are in increasing the 
academic results that we all are looking for charter schools accepting 
all students of all races.
  We have had testimony that in certain areas that certainly is true. 
But is it universal? Are charter schools using certified teachers? In 
some cases they are not. What impact does that have on turnover of 
teaching forces in a charter school? What effect does a for-profit 
entity which is involved in the development of a charter school have on 
the ways the school operates for the success of its student?
  All of these questions are important questions that I think must be 
answered. And the only method that we have to answer them is to make 
sure that the Secretary of Education has the mandate to go in and study 
these things. The current language in the bill only allows for the 
completion of existing 4-year charter school studies presently being 
completed by the Department of Education and any related subjects. This 
amendment would give us the information, I believe, that we truly need 
to gauge how charter schools are operating.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the Martinez amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out at the outset that there are aspects 
of the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] that I 
think have merit. He is a good friend. He is the ranking member of the 
subcommittee. He has made many contributions to the very positive and 
bipartisan work that we have done over the last year during the first 
session of this Congress.
  I would like to, if at all possible, continue to work with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] on his amendment between now 
and the time that we might go to conference with the other body. I 
understand that the thrust of the amendment of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez] is to sort of reorder the priorities under 
the National Activities section of the bill, and the gentleman would 
suggest, and I think he does this very, very sincerely, that the 
Secretary and the Department should give higher priority to the ongoing 
evaluations and studies of charter schools than assisting charter 
schools in accessing private capital.
  However, I hasten to add that we heard anecdotal testimony during our 
hearings, including our field hearings in different communities around 
the country, that many charter schools, like a startup business, have 
difficulty accessing capital, sufficient capital to meet their cash-
flow needs, sufficient capital to remain in business as a charter 
school and continue to educate the young people.
  In fact, as I pointed out, one of the reasons that we have in our 
proposed legislation extended the life of the initial Federal taxpayer 
grant for charter schools from 3 years to 5 years is because many 
charter schools, while producing impressive academic results, showing 
demonstrated improvement in pupil performance at the 3-year mark, are 
still struggling to make ends meet financially.
  That all said, I would like to submit to the gentleman that perhaps 
we ought to say that both these areas are high priorities for the 
Department. I have to also tell my colleague that the very last item in 
his amendment, at least the version I have, which is paragraph (D) on 
page 2, requiring the ongoing evaluation to include a description of 
the relationship between a charter school developer and any for-
profit entity that is involved in the development or administration of 
any school, is unacceptable, for the simple reason that we on several 
occasions, and I think the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will 
confirm this, we on several occasions considered, discussed, or debated 
the possibility of making references to for-profit entities in the 
legislation but at the end of the day decided to eliminate any 
references to for-profit entities in the name of bipartisanship.

  So I would like to submit to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Martinez] that this should come out, because I would be happy to defend 
the role of for-profit entities, such as, for example, the Edison 
Project, the great work that they are doing.
  I mentioned the other day on the floor that this, and I happen to 
have it with me, this Parade magazine article, where a Parade reporter, 
who happens to have an active teaching credential, went to different 
elementary schools around the country, fifth grade elementary 
classrooms around the country in Pullman, WA; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; 
Salt Lake City, UT; and she concluded that the most impressive school 
she visited was the Boston Renaissance Charter School, obviously in 
Boston, MA. That happens to be run under a contract by the Edison 
Project, which, in my understanding, is a for-profit corporation.
  Mr. Chairman, this lady, by the name of Bernice Kanner, goes on to 
say, ``Reading is king at the Boston Renaissance Charter School, and of 
all the places I visited, this one worked best. The students, most of 
whom are black and come from low-income homes, pay nothing and are 
selected by lottery,'' pursuant to Massachusetts and Federal law 
regarding charter schools. ``Parents are required to be involved in 
their child's education, a computer is lent to every student, and they 
have a longer school day and year. Students spend 1\1/2\ hours daily 
reading and improving their writing skills. Lessons followed a strict 
formula. The students

[[Page H10185]]

read silently.'' She is a teacher and was substituting in this 
classroom and at this school. ``Then I read to them and reviewed 
vocabulary. They answered questions in their journals from a book they 
had read as homework. In science, they copied terms, along with their 
definitions, into their journals.''
  Just a brief description of the kind of instruction and learning that 
is taking place at the Boston Renaissance Charter School run by a for-
profit entity.
  So I want to submit to the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] 
that we can work on this amendment, but we would like to remove that 
reference under paragraph (D).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Chair to recapture part 
of my time so I might respond to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs]?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] cannot 
yield balances of time during debate under the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] that there are a lot of places and instances 
where we can find reports of charter schools that are doing excellent 
things, private for-profit charter schools, as well as public charter 
schools. And my argument is not with that; my argument is with 
accountability.
  I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] that (D) to 
this amendment is not that important, that I would strike that 
amendment if the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] would accept the 
rest of the language. And I agree also that the priorities of the 
Secretary could work hand in hand on the accountability aspects of it 
in generating revenues for charter schools.
  The problem is that I do not think it should be exclusively the 
responsibility or primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of 
State to generate those funds, to spend all of that time just 
generating funds, when he could actually be spending some of that time 
doing the evaluation of these schools so we would have a better 
knowledge when we go to reauthorize this legislation.
  So I would strike that if the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
is willing to accept the rest of the language, strike paragraph (D).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to say to our ranking member on the Democratic 
side that his amendment, on IDEA, is a very helpful amendment. I think 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and myself continue to work 
out language to make sure that charter schools, as we say very, very 
strongly in our bill, that charter schools will reflect the same 
student body that other public schools reflect and that individuals 
with disabilities and special-need students will have that access to 
charter schools.
  I think that is a very helpful amendment. I think, with this 
amendment, there are parts of the amendment of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez] that actually are already included in our 
bill. We actually say that the Department of Education's role in 
evaluation should be vital and should be important.

                              {time}  1115

  We go on to say in the bill that it directs the Secretary to complete 
the Department's 4-year study of charter schools, which addresses many 
of the same things that the gentleman from California outlines in his 
amendment. So we do have very, very strict accountability in the bill.
  Also, I think one of the key points that I would like to make is just 
this week I addressed, in Washington, a conference of charter school 
people from across the country; 800 or 900 people attended this 
conference. They said very specifically to me at the talk and at the 
conference and after my remarks that one of the biggest obstacles they 
face is the lack of start-up funds and the difficulty in accessing 
private capital for facility improvements. We want to make sure in our 
bill that they can overcome these kinds of obstacles.
  When the Hudson Institute did their study of what charter school 
difficulties there are in the first year or two, they also confirmed 
that start-up costs and facility improvements are the single biggest 
hurdles to fledgling charter schools. We want to make sure that these 
schools have access and this amendment would strike that ability, would 
eliminate that ability.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my friend from California, we want to 
get his support for final passage of this bill. We want to work with 
the gentleman from California on his IDEA language. We want to find 
some ways to make sure that he understands that we have accountability 
in the bill and that there are areas of repetition with his amendment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with anything the 
gentleman has said except that in the bill, as it is listed now, it is 
a very generic reference to that. What I am saying in this amendment is 
that we should be more specific. That is the only difference.


           Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Martinez

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment, and I think the modification is at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Martinez:
       On line 14 of the amendment insert ``and'' at the end, and 
     at the end of page 2, line 2, strike ``and.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would just 
explain to my good friend and colleague that the one thing that we do 
not want to do here is impose even more reporting requirements or 
regulatory compliance on charter schools. That obviously goes against 
the whole idea of decentralizing and deregulating public schools. But 
the one concern we still have on this side is requiring charter schools 
to provide to the Department or their contractor or whoever is 
conducting the ongoing study. Obviously, I think we should mention to 
our colleagues that the Department did the first-year study in-house. 
That said, our concern is requiring charter schools to gather 
disaggregated data on family income. That is the concern.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I am willing to strike those 
two words.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Could the Clerk rereport the amendment, please?
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will rereport the 
modification.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Martinez:
       At the end of subsection (B) insert the word ``and''; at 
     the end of subsection (C) delete the word ``and'' and insert 
     a period; and delete subsection (D).

  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       Page 18, line 7 strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 19, strike lines 3 through 5 and insert the following:
       ``(3) To provide for the completion of the 4-year national 
     study (which began in 1995) of charter schools and any 
     related present or future evaluations or studies which shall 
     include the evaluation of the impact of charter schools on 
     student achievement and equity, including information 
     regarding--
       ``(A) the number of students who applied for admission to 
     charter schools and the number of such students who enrolled 
     in charter schools, disaggregated on the basis of race, age, 
     family income, disability, gender, limited English 
     proficiency, and previous enrollment in a public school;
       ``(B) student achievement; and
       ``(C) qualifications of school employees at the charter 
     school, including the number of teachers within a charter 
     school that have been certified or licensed by the State and 
     the turnover of the teaching force.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a further modification 
to

[[Page H10186]]

that amendment, and that would be deleting the words ``family income'' 
on the 11th line on page 1.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Martinez:
       In subsection (A) after the word ``age'', delete ``family 
     income''; at the end of subsection (B) insert the word 
     ``and''; at the end of subsection (C) delete ``semicolon 
     and'' and insert a period; and delete subsection (D).

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to modifying the amendment?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would just 
ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] to clarify the meaning 
and definition of the word ``equity'' on line 6.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. The gentleman is referring to the word ``equity''?
  Mr. RIGGS. In the entire context.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. If the word ``equity'' gives the gentleman a problem, 
fairness. Because that is what it means. That is the definition of it 
to mean.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for going back and forth like 
this, but I am going to have to suggest to the gentleman that perhaps 
we take out those 2 words so that lines 4 through 6 would then read 
``studies which shall include the evaluation of the impact of charter 
schools on student achievement, including information regarding''.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Fine.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we can make 
that further modification, deleting the words ``and equity'' at the 
beginning of line 6.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Would this be the last modification?
  Mr. RIGGS. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain one unanimous-consent request 
on all of the modifications made thus far as opposed to a unanimous-
consent request on each separate portion.
  Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request to modify the 
amendment as has been reported?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is modified.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 18, line 7, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 19, strike lines 3 through 5 and insert the following:
       ``(3) To provide for the completion of the 4-year national 
     study (which began in 1995) of charter schools and any 
     related present or future evaluations or studies which shall 
     include the evaluation of the impact of charter schools on 
     student achievement, including information regarding--
       ``(A) the number of students who applied for admission to 
     charter schools and the number of such students who enrolled 
     in charter schools, disaggregated on the basis of race, age, 
     disability, gender, limited English proficiency, and previous 
     enrollment in a public school;
       ``(B) student achievement; and
       ``(C) qualifications of school employees at the charter 
     school, including the number of teachers within a charter 
     school that have been certified or licensed by the State and 
     the turnover of the teaching force.

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, several months ago I visited a charter 
school in Santa Rosa CA. I spend the morning with students in their 
small classes, saw the individual attention they got from their 
teachers, and met many of their parents. And when I left that school, I 
wept.
  I wept, Mr. Chairman, because I want every child to go to a school 
where the classes are small; where each student has an individual 
learning plan; where parents participate almost daily. You and I know 
how few students have these privileges.
  That is why I rise in strong support of Mr. Martinez' amendment to 
the Charter Schools Amendment Act.
  Mr. Chairman, during the hearing on charter schools in the Education 
Committee, we heard testimony that students with disabilities are 
consistently denied admission to charter schools, or, denied services 
once they are admitted.
  This is unacceptable. Charter schools are public schools, and they 
are required to comply with the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act.
  I know that many charter schools are started by parents and teachers 
who aren't familiar with IDEA and have never thought about educating a 
youngster with disabilities. That's why Mr. Martinez' amendment is so 
very important.
  This amendment says that when a charter school applied for Federal 
funds, the application must include a description of how the school 
will comply with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
  This amendment gives people who want to start a charter school a 
clear heads up that they have to comply with the act. It gets them to 
think about compliance, which, I am convinced, will give more kids the 
opportunity to go to a charter school.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Charter Schools Act in committee and I 
will vote for it again today.
  Charter schools offer a good chance for improving public education. 
Classes are small in charter schools, parents are more involved in 
their children's education and teachers have a stronger voice in what 
they teach.
  I want all public schools to be so lucky. But, until they are, we 
need to make sure that charter schools are ready and able to educate 
all students. Traditional public schools accept and educate all 
students--we must ask for nothing less from charter schools. We must 
pass the Martinez amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                amendment offered by mr. smith of oregon

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Oregon:
       Page 6, line 2, before the period, insert
     ``, notwithstanding that such a State does not meet the 
     requirements of section 10309(1)(A)''.
       page 6, line 20, before the period, insert
     ``, notwithstanding that such an eligible applicant does not 
     meet the requirements of section 10309(1)(A)''.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to especially thank 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the 
committee, and, of course, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], the 
ranking member, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the 
subcommittee chairman, for allowing me to bring this slight amendment 
to this very important bill today. I especially want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley], who brought this to my attention 
and who will assist valiantly in the support of this amendment, I know, 
simply because we in Oregon do believe in charter schools.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply allows Oregon to meet in their 
legislative process in 1999 and still continue to qualify for charter 
schools. We meet every 2 years in Oregon. We do support charter 
schools. Unfortunately, we are operating under enabling legislation in 
Oregon which does not conform specifically to the words of this bill. 
With the simple amendment, which applies only to the State of Oregon, 
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you give us an extension of 2 years to 
continue to support charter schools in our State.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] for their excellent work in 
bringing this legislation before us today. As many Members know, I had 
some concerns about this legislation, so I have had the opportunity to 
work closely with, again, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. We share the same concerns 
about Oregon and he has worked very hard on this issue. I want to thank 
the gentleman for all he has done. I am pleased that this resolution 
has been reached, and I appreciate the fine work of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], and to the extent that he has worked in good 
faith with us on this concern, I thank the gentleman very much.
  I support charter schools as a means of providing expanded 
educational choice for parents, and I support the intentions of this 
legislation. This will allow us in Oregon to continue to offer parents 
and teachers that have previously benefited from this program an 
opportunity to continue benefiting. I strongly support this amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this compromise amendment. I want 
to

[[Page H10187]]

commend the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley] for her hard work. She 
has been tenacious and diligent in working with me and with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. I want to compliment the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] as well, too.
  The purpose of this legislation that has been crafted in a delicate 
and bipartisan way is to make sure that we maintain the integrity of 
the language and not hurt existing charter schools. I think this 
compromise amendment makes sure that those existing schools are not 
hurt while some legislative bodies may not be meeting for a year or two 
in order to address some of the problems that they may have in their 
State. I strongly support this amendment and again want to commend the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith] for their hard work.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I too support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley]. Their 
amendment is very, very straightforward. It simply states that any 
State that has received a charter school grant prior to October 1, 
1997, shall be eligible for an extension grant, as we increase the life 
of an initial start-up or seed money grant to States for charter 
schools from 3 years to 5 years. I do also want to mention that with 
regard to the new money, the increase in Federal taxpayer funding for 
charter schools in the bill over the past fiscal year level of $51 
million in Federal taxpayer support for charter schools, the priority 
criterion in the bill is for States that have specific, and we hope, 
strong charter school laws on the books. I very much encourage both the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Hooley] to work with their constituents and certainly work with the 
State legislature in their home State to see if it is not possible for 
that State to adopt a similar law.


              Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Menendez

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, prior to this motion, there was 
business on the floor of the House that has not been completed. I would 
ask the gentleman prior to the time he makes his motion that we 
complete that business simply by accepting this amendment, and then the 
gentleman, of course, would offer his motion. He caught us in the 
middle of a vote.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey caught us in the middle 
of offering an amendment, and the Chair did not have a chance to place 
the amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the motion to rise is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Menendez

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 71, 
noes 348, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 608]

                                AYES--71

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Wise
     Woolsey

                               NOES--348

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H10188]]



                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bono
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Riley
     Schiff
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Talent
     Wexler
     Yates

                              {time}  1153

  Messrs. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, HASTERT, GALLEGLY, HOBSON, and BOB 
SCHAFFER of Colorado and Ms. DeGETTE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. SKAGGS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendments Offered by Mr. Pastor

  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pastor:
       Page 18, after line 2, insert the following.
       ``(g) Tribally Controlled Schools.--Each State that 
     receives a grant under this part and designates a tribally 
     controlled school as a charter school shall not consider 
     payments to a school under the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2507) in determining--
       ``(1) the eligibility of the school to receive any other 
     Federal, State, or local aid; or
       ``(2) the amount of such aid.''.

  Mr. PASTOR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2616, 
the Charter Schools Amendments Act.
  As we know, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, distributes funds to 
tribal schools through the Indian Student Equalization Program, or 
ISEP. The State of Arizona passed an amendment to its charter schools 
law allowing the State to deduct Federal ISEP payments from the State 
payment to tribal charter schools. My amendment would simply prevent 
the States from using this practice.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the chairman has accepted my 
amendment.
  As many of you know, the Bureau of Indian Affairs distributes funds 
to tribal schools through the Indian Student Equalization Program, or 
ISEP. The State of Arizona passed an amendment to its charter schools 
law allowing the State to deduct Federal ISEP payments from the State 
payment to tribal charter schools. My amendment would simply prevent 
States from using this practice. Native American schools, often among 
the poorest schools in the country, should not be penalized for 
qualifying for federal assistance. Impact Aid has a similar provision, 
and I simply wish to ensure that tribal charter schools are treated in 
the same manner.
  I represent a number of tribes in Arizona, and I have seen firsthand 
the poverty and illiteracy that plague these reservations. These 
schools are among the poorest in the country, and every additional 
dollar is vital to the future of these children. These schools are 
desperate for additional resources, and I am proud to offer this 
amendment today.
  It is my understanding that Chairman Goodling, as well as Congressman 
Riggs, have agreed to this amendment. I appreciate the assistance of 
both Mr. Riggs and Mr. Kildee, and I am pleased they have agreed to 
this amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to suggest to my colleagues 
how we on this side would like and intend to proceed through the 
remainder of the consideration of the charter school bill and how we 
propose to dispose of the pending amendments.
  It is our intent on this side to accept the Pastor amendment, and we 
are prepared to do so at this time. We are also prepared to accept the 
Kingston amendment renaming the bill from the Charter Schools 
Amendments Act of 1997 to the Community Designed Charter Schools Act of 
1997.
  Mr. Chairman, we are also prepared to accept at this time the 
Traficant Buy America labeling provisions amendment which is also 
pending before the House.
  It is my understanding, after talking to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Weygand] that he will offer and withdraw his amendment 
pending our engaging in a colloquy, and I hope that the distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee will join us in that colloquy.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are still trying to work out an 
understanding with the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] as to 
his two amendments. We hope we can accommodate his amendment with 
respect to applying the IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, to a certain category of charter schools, and in exchange for 
doing that he might withdraw his amendment reducing the charter school 
grant period from 5 years to 3 years.
  Mr. Chairman, that would leave us only the Clyburn and Tierney 
amendments to deal with.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I would ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee accept and approve the Pastor amendment, the 
Kingston amendment, and the Traficant amendment.

                              {time}  1200


                Further Amendments Offered by Mr. Riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the other two 
amendments that are part of my unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman asking to offer those amendments at 
this point in time as his own amendments en bloc with the Pastor 
Amendment?
  Mr. RIGGS. I am, Mr. Chairman. The Kingston amendment and the 
Traficant amendment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I was just 
going to ask the chairman what the Kingston amendment was. I was just 
told what it was. It is not anything of consequence, so we will accept 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the additional amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Riggs:
       Page 2, beginning on line 2, strike ``Charter Schools'' and 
     all that follows through line 3, and insert the following: 
     ``Community-Designed Charter Schools Act''.
       Page 23, after line 16, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 10311. PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS.

       ``If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a fraudulent 
     label bearing a `Made in America' inscription, or any 
     inscription with the same meaning, to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that was not made in the United 
     States, such person shall be ineligible to receive any 
     contract or subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to 
     this part, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and 
     ineligibility procedures described in section 9.400 through 
     9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.''.

  Mr. RIGGS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendments 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 amendments being considered 
en bloc?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, it is very 
difficult to hear with all of the noise in here. I do not really mean 
to object, but I would like the chairman to present it to us one more 
time with a little more order in the Chamber so that we might hear.
  The CHAIRMAN. Unanimous consent is pending on the consideration of 
several amendments.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] has reserved the right 
to object, and the gentleman is recognized under that reservation of 
objection.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], if he would just go 
through that order again of the amendments with an explanation of what 
the amendments are.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, and my good 
friend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is also seeking 
recognition, but my unanimous-consent request that is now pending 
before the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous-consent request pending in the 
Committee of the Whole pursuant to our accepting the following three 
amendments on this side. The unanimous

[[Page H10189]]

consent request is obviously that the Committee of the Whole adopt and 
approve the following amendments:
  First, the Pastor amendment, which prohibits States that receive a 
charter school grant from considering payments to a school under the 
Tribally Controlled Schools Act in determining the eligibility of the 
school to receive any other Federal, State, or local aid, or the amount 
of such aid.
  The second amendment pending is the Kingston amendment, which 
effectively changes the name of the bill from the Charter School 
Amendments Act of 1997 to the Community Design Charter Schools Act of 
1997.
  The third amendment is the Traficant Buy America labeling provisions 
amendment. I am proposing again under my unanimous-consent request that 
the Committee of the Whole adopt and approve those three amendments.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I 
reclaim my time and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  I would like to try to get order, Mr. Chairman, because this is a 
very important bill; we are dealing with education and public school 
choice.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to explain to my colleagues, particularly the 
Democrats, that most of these amendments are our amendments, and we are 
accommodating the Democrats with accepting the amendments, and we want 
to move on to accepting these amendments, working out a colloquy, 
working through this very important bill, and then passing it. I think 
we are only about 15 or 20 minutes away from passing this important 
legislation, and if we will get the cooperation of the body for just 
that amount of time, I think we are very, very close to finishing up 
this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] for that statement and I totally agree with it. We are close to 
passing this bill. The Chairman has been totally agreeable in accepting 
these amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendments en 
bloc with the Pastor amendment?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the three amendments?
  The question is on the amendments offered by the gentlemen from 
Arizona [Mr. Pastor] and California [Mr. Riggs].
  The amendments were agreed to.


              Preferential Motion Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 75, 
noes 334, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 609]

                                AYES--75

     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (RI)
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Smith, Adam
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Watt (NC)
     Wise
     Woolsey

                               NOES--334

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Ackerman
     Armey
     Berman
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Cubin
     Dickey
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Leach
     Linder
     Livingston
     McCrery
     Oxley
     Riley
     Schiff
     Stokes
     Talent
     Tiahrt
     Yates

                              {time}  1225

  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Weygand

  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Weygand:
       Page 15, line 17, strike ``, to the extent possible.''.
       Page 15, line 20, insert ``to'' before ``each''.
       Page 15, line 20, insert ``which has applied for a grant in 
     accordance with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) 
     of section 10363'' after ``State''.

  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to provide a measure of 
fairness to the distribution of funds under the public charter schools 
program. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying I vigorously support the 
concept of charter schools, which further public education opportunity 
for students in the entire country.

[[Page H10190]]

  As Lieutenant Governor of Rhode Island, I supported and advocated for 
the passage of Rhode Island's charter school law, a responsible 
approach to chartering public schools which has spawned in our small 
State two very successful schools thus far.
  One such school is the Textron Chamber of Commerce Charter School in 
the city of Providence, RI. It just received a charter this summer from 
the Rhode Island Board of Regents.

                              {time}  1230

  The Textron Chamber of Commerce Academy targets at-risk students and 
offers these students access to the surrounding professional work 
community in Providence in after-school jobs. The employees of 
businesses in which the students are placed serve as professional 
mentors for these students. These students also receive benefits by 
attending the charter school.
  In exchange for agreeing to achieve a 95-percent attendance record, 
to maintain a minimum average of C in every course of study and behave 
in a work-appropriate manner in school, the student receives many 
benefits from the school, including placement in a job with a mentor in 
preparation for college.
  The charter also gives the governing board the responsibility to 
control the budget and purchasing of the school, to evaluate teachers 
and other professional staff, to establish graduation requirements, and 
to set forth educational priorities, and to exercise oversight over 
their bylaws.
  In order to fulfill graduation requirements, the student takes 
traditional courses in English, history, mathematics, and science, and 
other important subjects, performs work internships, performs community 
service, and does independent study.
  So what distinguishes this school from other wonderful charter 
schools operating throughout the United States? This school has not 
received one dime, not one penny, from the public charter school 
program. Not one Federal dollar goes to this school. Yet, it epitomizes 
what charter schools are supposed to be about and what this legislation 
was established to do.
  Neither do the schools in Arkansas, Mississippi, Nevada, New 
Hampshire, Ohio, or Wyoming receive any such support. Yet, they have 
such charter schools. Schools in these States need this grant money 
just as much as schools in other States to assist in start-up costs. 
They deserve to reap the benefits of the public charter schools 
program.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would simply require that the Secretary 
of Education provide a portion of the funds available under this 
program to all States which have laws allowing the establishment of 
charter schools and conform to the requirements of section 10303 of 
this bill. The State chartering agency would still be required to 
complete the extensive application process to comply with all 
applicable requirements of the law.
  Under my amendment, as reported in the bill, there is no minimum or 
maximum grant. The grant amounts would still be at the discretion of 
the Secretary of Education. The Secretary will still have the 
appropriate flexibility to decide which amount would be most 
appropriate to benefit the charter schools and the students in every 
State.
  I applaud the Department of Education's efforts to spur further 
development of innovative charter schools, and I strongly support what 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has done. I think what we are 
trying to do here is really make those charter schools that are 
operating in the country the very best.
  But we must recognize that we cannot simply award the money to the 
cream of the crop. There are charter schools that are out there that 
need assistance maybe in the way they have their autonomy, or their 
purchasing power, or their review of teachers, or their review of other 
professionals, or their mentoring program. That should not push them to 
the bottom of the barrel.
  Simply because a State, like Rhode Island or Massachusetts or other 
States, happens to put a cap on the number of charter schools, it was 
done just so that we could have oversight and not to discourage charter 
schools. We should not be discriminated against just because we want to 
be sure our charter schools are the best that they can be. 
Unfortunately, though, Mr. Chairman, they are.
  I would, though, like at this time, after conferencing with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and our ranking member on the 
committee, I would like to withdraw the amendment because we have an 
understanding.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with both the ranking member 
and the chairman at this time if it is appropriate, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand, after my discussion with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs], that he indeed agreed with the concept 
that these charter schools that operate in this fashion are de facto.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Weygand] has expired.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Weygand].
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] and I both agree that charter schools that we 
have described here today are the essence of what is intended by this 
legislation, that in fact we both agree and feel that the Department of 
Education and the Secretary, under the discretionary fund amount of 
money that he has, should in fact encourage and assist financially and 
otherwise charter schools like this, and that my colleague and I, with 
our ranking member, will enter into a letter to the Secretary of 
Education suggesting and promoting that these charter schools, as well 
as in other States, like Ohio and other States, that really do meet the 
essence and do need some assistance, whether they are the top or bottom 
of the barrel, should receive funding to help them bring them and rise 
them to the top of the barrel, and that what we would like to see is 
that the Secretary of Education take a second look at the way they fund 
these charter schools and, indeed, to help these charter schools and to 
remove the stigma that is attached to maybe the overriding legislation, 
as in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where they do put caps, they do 
in fact meet the letter of what we want to have as charter schools.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Weygand] is essentially correct. I do want to join with 
him, Mr. Chairman, in encouraging but not requiring the Department to 
provide funding for the start-up of charter schools in the State of 
Rhode Island and other States that have charter school laws on the 
books today but have not yet been deemed eligible and have not yet 
received any taxpayer funding through the Department of Education.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Further, if I could add that, indeed, we should not be 
discriminating against States that happen to have a legislative cap in 
their State laws, but in fact do in all other elements encourage and 
promote charter schools. That should not be a discriminating kind of 
factor.
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, there is no, of course, intent to 
discriminate against those States. There is an intent in the new 
legislation as to the new money, all money over and above the past 
fiscal year level of $51 million, to drive more money to States that 
have no caps or that reconsider their legislation to remove any caps 
that might presently exist.
  I do want to point out to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Weygand] that I am informed by staff that Rhode Island has twice 
applied to the Department for funding under the Federal Charter Schools 
Act and it has been turned down, obviously.
  Hence the concern of the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand], 
which I share, because of the great work of at least one charter school 
that the gentleman mentioned to me, and that the Department apparently 
has offered the State of Rhode Island technical assistance in 
qualifying for Federal taxpayer charter school funding.
  So I do hope we can encourage the Department to work with the State 
to provide Rhode Island and the other States with funding. I would 
point out that we are not trying to create a

[[Page H10191]]

catch-22 here under the legislation where those States that have 
charter school laws in the books and are not yet receiving any funding 
do not receive any of the new money contemplated in the bill.
  Indeed, I want to say to the Secretary and to the Department, given 
the fact that we have retained your sole discretion over the $51 
million, and given the fact in this legislation we contemplate doubling 
Federal taxpayer support for charter schools across the country, I 
would hope that they would redouble their efforts to work with Rhode 
Island and the other States that have charter school laws on the books 
but have not yet received Federal taxpayer support for charter schools 
to make sure that they do receive some support from the $51 million 
that the Secretary will continue to control at his sole discretion over 
the life of the legislation. This is so-called old money.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  It is obvious that the whole purpose of the charter school was to 
improve and reform education. There are those of us in the Chamber who 
feel we ought to be reforming and improving education for every child 
in the United States. But if in this legislation or in the way the plan 
is structured now we have inadvertently made it harder for one State to 
get funds over other States because of the criteria we set in place, I 
think the discretionary money that the Secretary has could be used to 
look at those kinds of situations and remedy those.
  I would certainly agree to join with my chairman, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], in sending a letter or notifying in any way the 
Secretary of State that he ought to really look at those kinds of 
situations and try to do everything he could to benefit those places.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], who is offering this bill.
  First of all, my State, the State of Nevada, has a legislature that 
meets every 2 years. We have just completed that legislative session in 
July this year. Our State legislature passed a charter schools bill. It 
was not everything that I would have liked to have seen in the charter 
schools bill, but it did at least start us down that process.
  We do have the caps. We do have some of the other things in our State 
where we do not quite give as much local flexibility as I would like to 
see. But our State did, in fact, start it down the process.
  I would like to work with the chairman on this particular piece of 
legislation as it moves forward to try to get States like Nevada, that 
only meet every 2 years, that because we cannot do anything for another 
year and a half in our State legislature, to try to at least encourage 
them through this legislation to model so that there is more local 
control, so there are not the caps, so that our State would not be 
penalized under this legislation.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would be very, very happy and, in fact, 
eager to work with the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and Nevada 
State government officials to see if, in fact, again, we cannot 
encourage the Department of Education to look favorably upon their 
funding request as to the so-called old money, the $51 million, in this 
bill. Again, it is only the amount over and above $51 million that will 
go out pursuant to the priority factors, the so-called incentives.
  Furthermore, I just want to say so my colleagues understand this, 
because I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] know this, I obviously come from a 
State that does have a very strict limit on the number of charter 
schools that can be created. I believe the number is 100 or 110 in the 
State of California today.
  So, again, as to the new money in this bill, the difference between 
the $51 million current funding level and the $100 million authorized 
annually in this legislation, I am putting my own State at a 
competitive disadvantage. But we are doing that, again, to try to 
reward States that have strong charter school laws on the books that 
have truly embraced the charter school movement.
  I am happy to work with the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] for 
his concerns, as well as the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand] 
as we move forward with this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Rhode Island wish to withdraw 
his amendment?
  Mr. WEYGAND. Yes, Mr. Chairman. After our colloquy with the chairman 
and the understanding that we will move forward in that direction, I 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney:
       Beginning on page 7, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 8, line 21.

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for its 
work being done in focusing on public schools.
  We have had debates in this Chamber recently that have been 
addressing some aspects or concepts that we thought have been a 
draining of resources from the public schools that serve this country's 
90 percent of children that cannot afford and cannot go to private 
schools.
  The public charter school bill has the potential to do what many of 
us have been advocating; and this is, address the needs of public 
schools, encourage experimentation within the public schools to help 
those that need improvement more than others might.
  There are many successful public schools throughout this country, in 
particular in my district, and there are some that need some help to 
get the obvious improvements. They need to have engaged employees. They 
need to have an entrepreneurial spirit amongst their administrators. 
They need to have the involvement of communities, the colleges, and the 
businesses, parental involvement. They have to diminish the class size 
to make it more manageable. They have to have teacher training and 
retraining. And, obviously, we want to have a period of evaluation, of 
measurement, as to how these schools are going as they try to meet 
their defined mission.
  We have some concerns that some of these charter schools step outside 
the bounds and do not concentrate enough on the public school aspect. 
But in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I think we have done some 
very wise things. We have set up more than one kind of charter school. 
In fact, we had the prudence to establish different kinds so that they 
can get more involved and for more people and more support for this 
experimental measure.
  We have Horace Mann chartered schools, and we have commonwealth 
charter schools. Some would argue that the Horace Mann school may not 
be as autonomous as the commonwealth schools. But, nonetheless, the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has made that recent decision to 
experiment to see which is the one that they prefer to proceed with 
after a period of time has gone by so that they can measure 
performance.
  In Massachusetts, we also have a cap on the number of charter 
schools, because that State has decided to be prudent to examine at 
some point in time how the progress has gone, whether or not one type 
or another has been better, whether or not there is some combination of 
the features of these schools that should be made to improve them 
before they move forward.
  But at any expense, the State and Commonwealth of Massachusetts has 
made these decisions. And usually we hear the argument on the other 
side of the aisle how they want local governments to have some control 
over the direction of their educational system in the public schools.

                              {time}  1245

  That is what we have done in Massachusetts. We have experimented, we 
have set up alternate types. As to the money that is now granted under 
the

[[Page H10192]]

charter school law, the $51 million, Massachusetts would qualify. As to 
the additional $49 million that this bill purports to establish, it may 
not, because by this legislation if the priority section remains in, we 
set new bars, new levels to be met. That seems to me, Mr. Chairman, a 
bit of a contradiction. On the one hand, in committee and here we hear 
that the reason we need more money is that startup charter schools do 
not have enough funds to start up properly. Yet we are not going to 
give those States that have charter schools any more money if they do 
not meet these new bars. If in their prudence, in their judgment, they 
have put a cap on the number of schools so that at the time the cap is 
met they can measure the performance and make any adjustments, they are 
not going to qualify for the additional money. If they have decided to 
have a variety of types of charter schools so they can get more 
involvement for more members of the community in some and they want to 
measure the performance as opposed one to the other, then they may get 
penalized because they may not meet another priority of what is a large 
or huge amount of autonomy.
  Mr. Chairman, all I am saying is that Massachusetts ought to be able 
to qualify to the old and the new money. We ought not to be raising new 
bars that have the potential to disqualify them. If we are truly 
serious about having an experiment within the public school system, 
then let the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other similarly situated 
States engage in that experiment, let them decide how they are doing 
with what types of school they put forth before they proceed further 
and allow them to have some portion of this additional money so that 
the schools they have started have those additional funds to move 
forward and start up in a way that will make this a productive 
experiment. Mr. Chairman, that is all we seek. If we eliminate the 
priority section of this particular proposed bill, we put all States on 
an even footing, we do not discriminate or penalize any and the public 
charter school process moves forward.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As I 
have said repeatedly now over the 2 days that this bill has been before 
the House, this bill directs the new money, the new Federal taxpayer 
spending above the past fiscal year level of $51 million for charter 
school startup, it directs this new money, $51 million, to those States 
that provide a high degree of fiscal autonomy to charter schools, those 
States that allow for increases in the number of charter schools from 
year to year, and incidentally I am told that the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts has not reached its cap on the number of charter schools 
that can be created within the Commonwealth, and States that provide 
for strong academic accountability and improved pupil results from year 
to year, continuous improvement. The Tierney amendment would delete the 
priority section as to the new money.
  I want to just make sure, because I was able, I believe, to convince 
the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand] and the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Ensign] that the priority factors are attached only to new 
money. In other words, the $51 million will continue to go out from 
year to year to charter schools across the country the old way; that is 
to say, at the complete discretion of the Secretary of Education in the 
Department of Education. I think we could all agree that even if we are 
talking about $51 million or $100 million, this is a limited amount of 
money and therefore it needs to be targeted in some fashion.
  Given what we have learned in our field hearings, and in our hearings 
back here in Washington about what makes a successful charter school, 
it is important to, in my view as the principal author of the 
legislation with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], direct the 
Secretary to send money to the strongest charter schools in those 
States, as I have said over and over again, that have a strong charter 
school statute on the books.
  We recognize that only a few States presently meet all three priority 
criteria. However, several States meet two of the three and all States 
meet at least one of the three criteria. Therefore, it is unlikely any 
State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my home State of California, 
it is unlikely that any State will receive a complete windfall from 
prioritizing the new money nor will any State lose most of its charter 
school funding. Rather, the priorities again simply redirect the new 
money to those States with strong charter school laws.
  This is discretionary money. The last thing we want to do, I think, 
is create a new Federal education entitlement. Again, if we turn this 
into an entitlement, even at $51 million, and therefore give a little 
bit of money to all who would qualify under this program as an 
entitlement, I think we will defeat the purpose of this bill and we 
will not, I think, be using the money effectively on behalf of 
taxpayers to start up charter schools in those States that have truly 
embraced the charter school movement and truly have endorsed the 
concept of more parental choice in public education.
  Again, the current law requires the Secretary take into consideration 
the criteria. However, as the law is currently drafted, the Secretary 
will continue to have broad discretion in weighing the criteria and in 
determining how much to send to each State. The priority section again 
is simply intended to put teeth into the existing criteria and provide 
some guidance to the Secretary on how new money should be allocated to 
the States.
  The Tierney amendment, well-intentioned, and to his credit he was 
kind enough to come by my office and visit, but his amendment I think 
again would defeat the purpose of our legislation. It would effectively 
gut the priority section in the bill. It would maintain, I think, a 
status quo that is being promoted by the education establishment, who 
fears any competition, any threat to their monopoly of financial 
control, and it would create a new Federal education entitlement. 
Therefore, I am strongly opposed to the Tierney amendment and I urge 
its defeat.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize first of all the great work that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has done on this. I know he is 
very sincere about this issue. But I know equally the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] is, and I would like to yield to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the comments that have 
been made. I think we are having a healthy debate here, but I want to 
make a note that I sense that what is being said here is there may be 
more than one purpose of this proposed bill. I think that there are 
apparently two purposes being put forward on this. One is apparently 
some desire to have this Congress impose upon States a necessity that 
they charge forward with a judgment that charter schools are already a 
raging success before they have had the opportunity to assess and 
measure the performance of their own experimental schools that have 
been started. I am not sure that that is a healthy aspect. I thought 
experimenting was about setting on a path, taking a very conscious and 
prudent evaluation and proceeding only after those types of 
measurements have been made.
  The other purpose, as I understand it in this particular statute, is 
to make sure that startup schools that currently say they do not have 
sufficient funding to start up can share in some additional funding, 
and that is why there is more money being put into the pie. But the 
maybe unintended consequence of this act will be that it will now 
preclude them because the Secretary may come in and decide that they do 
not have enough autonomy in one or more types of experimental school 
that has been established and they do not meet the priority because 
they have a cap on that and when they meet that cap, although they may 
not be there now, they will then be precluded from getting any of those 
additional funds.
  I note that earlier the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] put 
forth an amendment that called this the Community Designed Charter 
School Act. I think that at least with respect to one of those 
priorities, we move against communities designing the type of charter 
school they will have where we attempt to impose how this Congress 
wants to design individual charter schools.

[[Page H10193]]

  In Massachusetts, as I have said before, we have come together as 
communities and designed several different kinds of charter schools 
with varying degrees of autonomy, with varying degrees of numbers that 
they can reach before they get evaluated. That to me seems the way to 
go. It has more people engaged in this process, and some that were not 
in favor of charter schools before are now coming on board, willing to 
exercise that experimental nature.
  I urge that we do away with the priorities and simply take the 
initial funding and let all States qualify so that we have better 
public schools, with the involvement of the entire community, and that 
we do not try to preclude anybody's participation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEYGAND. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I concur in the remarks of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, and maybe the subcommittee chairman can help me, but I 
do not understand what it is about the current system that is not 
working or not allowing for the number of charter schools that we want 
or the progression of charter schools that we want. My State, the State 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], has a limit of 100. I 
think they have looked the other way and breached that already and 
there are maybe over 110 schools, but the statute is still 100. But I 
do not understand why we are insisting on some level of growth in 
charter schools if the States make in their determination that they 
want to stage it in another fashion.
  I can appreciate that a concern might be that there are those who do 
not like charter schools who would get a limitation put on the number 
of charter schools or the growth rate of charter schools at the State 
level, and I think that would be wrong. But I do not know that we 
should be telling the State how fast to grow charter schools. If they 
can handle 100 or handle 50 or handle 500, it would seem to me that is 
a legislative determination with their State departments of education 
about how they want to proceed in this fashion.
  I think there are two big dangers here. We find something we like and 
we overreplicate it and we lose the integrity of what we are trying to 
hold on to. In many States, this is a new program but we are looking 
for integrity. We are looking for the opposite of what people think 
they find sometimes in the local schools, in terms of curriculum, 
accountability, and the kind of people who can teach and so forth. That 
is why they went to a charter school. But it seems to me if you grow 
like top seed, what happens around here most times is that these 
programs start to lose their integrity, they start to look like that 
which they were there to maybe replace or to renew, and all of a sudden 
we are back to spending people's money and now we have got GAO reports 
and IG reports. I do not know why we would not leave it to the States 
to make this determination and not get into this business of old money 
and new money when it comes to charter schools, because it sounds to me 
like most States are now seeing that this is the future.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Reclaiming my time if I could, Mr. Chairman, I think 
what the gentleman from California has pointed out is exactly the 
essence of the argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Tierney]. States should have the control, which the Republican side has 
always said. We are trying to determine where they should be, the 
destiny of their school systems, and what he is proposing is just that.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in strong support of the Tierney amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to appeal to the gentleman from 
California, the chairman of the subcommittee, to look at the priorities 
that he set as recommendations in this bill and understand that, and I 
am a strong supporter of this bill and I will vote for it, but I am 
supporting it and will vote for it because I think it is a good way to 
move the agenda forward, to escalate the charter school support, but I 
assume we are going to have to revisit this issue next year and we are 
going to take a closer look at charter schools and what we can do at 
the Federal level to make certain that this is an idea whose time has 
come and is not destroyed and distorted because it is handled in the 
wrong way.
  I am in favor of maximizing the experiment now. Let us maximize it. 
Let us give the freedom to the States to experiment. Experiment does 
not mean that they can wildly go galloping off, because I do not think 
any State legislature is going to let that happen. I think probably 
Arizona has one of the freest and most permissive charter school laws, 
and they are beginning to rein that in. We understand there will be 
people who will not adhere to standards. There must be accountability. 
We understand that money is involved here, and there is a need to deal 
with restrictions on the way money is handled and the way the financing 
is done. There are a lot of problems that are going to have to be 
ironed out. But let us see it as a research and development operation 
at this point. We are experimenting. These are projects that can teach 
us a whole lot. In the future I think we need to back away from any 
notion that this is an idea that is going to perpetuate itself 
automatically by itself. We need to not romanticize the idea of charter 
schools and believe that nothing can go wrong. A lot of things can go 
wrong. Money is involved here. We are going to have to have, not a 
whole set of regulations but more guidance at the Federal level is 
going to be necessary. Just in the area of civil rights abuses. We do 
not want charter schools to be used to perpetuate segregation and 
racism. There are a number of areas that we are going to have to deal 
with.
  I look forward to next year having a more detailed bill to look at 
charter schools and help promote them. But right now, why not have 
maximum experimentation? Why not have OERI be given notice that we want 
them to closely monitor charter schools? There are less than 800 
charter schools now in existence out of more than 86,000 public 
schools. Given the fact that they are less than 1 percent, they are not 
going to run away out of control and take over the public school system 
any time soon, but they can offer invaluable lessons to the public 
school systems in terms of the kinds of things we can learn from them. 
We should be looking to learn those things from them.

                              {time}  1300

  We should not allow certain kinds of things to happen. I think we 
have a problem even with definitions of charter schools by some States. 
If charter schools are not going to be fully funded where the school 
gets the same amount per pupil as other public schools get, I do not 
think they are real charter schools. That is a problem that has 
developed already. We are going to go back and take a look at that.
  There are a number of problems that next year we are going to have to 
take a close look at, but right now why not go forward and leave the 
community design idea there, the State design idea there, and let it at 
this point be fully open for experimentation; Massachusetts and any 
other State. New York does not even have a law yet; we are trying hard 
to get one.
  We should be in a position to do at the bottom in the chain the 
things that have to be done to study them across the board, and, if we 
have 50 different sets of examples of State laws and for all the 16,000 
school boards in the country, different variations of that, so let it 
be. Let us study it, let us get the best out of all of them and be able 
to go forward with a maximum, well-developed approach to charter 
schools in the future. Next year, year after and ongoing years we will 
be perfecting and refining this instrument, and right now I do not 
think we have to be so careful and so cautious that we cannot let 
States fully experiment.
  I fully support the Tierney amendment and hope that the chairman will 
reconsider and let his priorities be recommendations at this point.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  First I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding to me so simply I can point out that, as my colleagues know, 
when we draft legislation, we can always

[[Page H10194]]

take the carrot approach or the stick approach, and what we took here 
was the carrot approach. We said that we wanted to direct the new money 
to those States that have laws on the books that allow for an increase 
in the number of charter schools from year to year. We did not take the 
stick approach and say the new money cannot go to those States that 
have a cap. So there is a very fundamental difference.
  And the other point I wanted to make is this is all about where my 
colleagues think control and authority ought to be in education. We 
said we respect and preserve the Secretary's discretion to control $51 
million, but we do not want him to control the entire $100 million 
authorized under the bill. We want the new money to be directed to the 
States, and that is all we are trying to do here is give some firm 
guidance to the Secretary on how that new money should be allocated to 
States.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this has been a very 
interesting debate and a very important debate, but to look at the 
total perspective of charter schools and the establishment of them and 
the growth of them, we must remember that the educational establishment 
was not for charter schools. They have been very reluctantly agreeing 
to support charter schools because they have been a very successful 
experiment.
  It is vital that we keep the priorities that this gentleman has put 
in this bill there because it is like fertilizing the garden. He is 
trying to allow charter schools to grow and not inhibit them. In my 
view the Tierney language will give all the control back to the 
establishment, to the Department, who are very reluctant to let charter 
schools grow naturally. Let us look at them.
  State periodically reviews academic performance of charter schools. 
How could we not want that to be there, that we look at their 
performance, because do my colleagues know what is going to happen? The 
performance has been good, and when the performance is good, the whole 
concept will grow. So we must slow that down.
  That is what the Tierney amendment does. State gives charters fiscal 
autonomy. Local control, local power, local decisions; no educational 
establishment wants that, and they will not give that reluctantly, they 
will give it very reluctantly.
  Let us keep that priority in there, allow for an increase in the 
number of charter schools from year to year. What is wrong with that? 
No State is going to increase the number unless it is working in that 
State, unless their program is proving good. These are appropriate 
priorities upon the new moneys going out there as a fertilizer, as the 
carrot approach there.
  Mr. Chairman, the Tierney amendment puts the power back in the 
establishment who will slow charter school growth down, who will keep 
it at a minimum. Do not let this thing get away from us, do not let 
local control takeover; that is what this argument is all about.
  It is very simple. This is a very thoughtful approach of a very 
little bit of money. Those are appropriate priorities. Let's go over 
them one more time: Academic performance, and then tell the world how 
well they are working; fiscal autonomy, local control, very important; 
allow for an increase in the number of charter schools, and that will 
only happen if it is working well.
  Let us let the bill as it is and defeat the Tierney amendment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I do not know that the last gentleman was completely accurate. I do 
not think this is about the establishment being against charter 
schools. I think this is about, this amendment is about the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] trying to protect the State. And Mr. 
Tierney is looking down the road to 3 years, well, the year 2001, when 
the criteria that is established in this bill will then be for all 
funding under this if we by that time find out that these are excess 
and we go to reauthorization of it with additional funding.
  Sure, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is right, and I 
understand his logic in saying there is a carrot and stick approach. We 
provide a direction for the charter school legislation the States will 
pass by putting the three characteristics in there that the State will 
allow the autonomy of the charter school, that the growth number of 
charter schools is allowed, and that they will not ensure the academic 
success of the students. Those are all worthwhile targets. I mean, we 
often do in legislation targets, but that is not the point here.
  The point here is that in doing that, even though there is $51 
million still remaining, discretionary money of the Secretary of State 
in which the gentleman's State could be funded for those charter 
programs that they have, he is concerned down the road in 3 years where 
then all will be controlled by that.
  Now, the other thing is the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Peterson] says that local control is important. Well, if local control 
is important, the way the charter schools bill was initially passed was 
to allow States to pass their own charter determining what their 
priorities would be. In this we are establishing the priorities for 
them. That is not local control, that is control from that Washington 
bureaucracy again that we are so alarmed with.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Tierney].
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, I do not think we have had any lengthy conversations, so 
I am a bit surprised to find out that he is taking what up to this 
point in time has been a fairly, I think, good level discussion about 
charter schools and how to best move forward in an inclusive manner and 
somehow inject it in an establishment type of argument.
  Let me tell my colleagues that Massachusetts under Democratic 
legislation has charter schools. As I said before, we have a variety of 
charter schools. So the issue is not whether it is establishment or 
antiestablishment, the issue is how do we become more inclusive so that 
even those people that were mentioned that might have been resisting 
now get brought into the fold and move forward and put these schools on 
the experiment basis that work, and that is the real issue.
  Nobody has raised, until the gentleman did, the issue of 
accountability; we did not say that we did not want accountability. In 
fact, to qualify as a charter school under the base legislation, there 
has to be an appropriate level of accountability.
  Saying it again as one of these three priorities probably was not 
necessary; it is the other two criteria that stand the potential of 
having my State pay a penalty of not being eligible for those 
additional funds initially and for any money eventually that brings us 
into this discussion, and there are other States similarly situated.
  So the fact of the matter is, if we want to be inclusive and we want 
to bring in even those folks that might have been hesitant to 
experiment and to get them because they have a lot to offer, and if we 
want to bring them in, and Massachusetts, for instance, wants to say we 
will have several kinds of charter schools, and we are going to get 
some people to participate in that we can move forward and experiment 
on, and if we want to have different degrees of autonomy, and we do not 
want to have Congress tell us what is the appropriate amount of 
autonomy, we want to experiment and find for ourselves what works in 
this State as the proper degree of autonomy, then I frankly think that 
that is a step forward, a step in the right direction.
  I think that now we are moving to these experiments and having the 
public schools have the opportunity to become energized, and to do new 
things, and to bring everybody into the fold and to work together, and 
I have said it a million times here, and it bears repeating, that when 
we do that, when we get the parents, and the employees, and the 
administration, and local colleges and businesses all working together, 
that we experiment, we will find the model that lets those schools that 
might be struggling succeed if we put the resources to allow them to 
succeed. And that is the measure that we want to go forward.
  And I do want to say for the record, and just to bring up the point 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], that I think might have 
misled some of us when he was speaking, this statute

[[Page H10195]]

specifically says that in 1998, 1999, and 2000 fiscal years, the 
additional money will be what is distributed under these new 
priorities, but it also goes on to say that in succeeding fiscal years 
all the money will be distributed under this particular priority 
formula.
  So there is an exposure there to States that may reach the cap at 
some later date, and I think that is even a stronger argument for why 
we do not let States proceed as they want to and make an evaluation. 
When it hits 50 in Massachusetts, they ought to be able to look and see 
what has worked and what has not worked, and then, after they have 
taken the requisite amount of time to do that, decide how they want to 
proceed and if they want to proceed.
  This is not a program where anybody has the evidence or the materials 
that can say now the charter schools of any nature are a raging 
success. It is an experiment, it needs to be assessed.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, first of all, want to compliment the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] for what I think is helpful contributions 
to a bold and brand new idea, which is charter schools. I think the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, first of all, is looking out for his 
State, which we are all sent here to do. I think the gentleman is also 
trying to help the committee and the body of Congress understand the 
impact of caps set at the State level and how those caps may serve on 
the one hand as a way to provide for accountability and not let charter 
schools grow so fast as to not have the proper amount of accountability 
at the local and the State level.
  But on the other hand, and here is where the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] and I get into this delicate balance, on the 
other hand we do not want to have States set an arbitrary cap that 
somehow will discourage the growth of these charter schools around the 
country. We now have about 700 charter schools in the United States. We 
have a goal of reaching somewhere in the vicinity of 3,000 charter 
schools in the United States. That is not Mr. Riggs' goal, that is not 
my goal, that is President Clinton's goal of 3,000, and we certainly do 
not want too many States saying they are going to limit their growth to 
15 and 17 and then 20.
  Mr. Chairman, we want to see these charter schools grow in 
accountable fashions where they have autonomy over their budgets, where 
they have bold new ideas on curriculum and they provide public choice 
to parents and students. So there is a very delicate balance, and I 
think the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] has helped us try 
to argue through in a very bipartisan and a very intelligent fashion 
how to try to provide a Federal incentive to have this balance, and I 
will yield to the gentleman in 1 second.
  The other thing I would say is President Clinton, in his radio 
address on October 18 where he endorsed this Riggs-Roemer legislation, 
said this:

       I endorse bipartisan efforts in the House and Senate to 
     help communities open 3,000 more charter schools in the 
     coming years, and here is the key, by giving States 
     incentives to issue more charters, more flexibility to try 
     reforms and strengthen accountability.

  Now I want to come back to that, giving States incentives to issue 
more charters. We are using that carrot approach here, and again the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] says, well, there is a 
tension, and there is, there is a tension in this, and we are trying to 
find the right balance in not trying to have an unfair, arbitrary, 
stultifying cap that discourages more charter schools when they are 
growing in a State like Arizona or California, but on the same hand in 
a State like Massachusetts that has different tiers of these charter 
schools, we want to make sure that they can rise up to their cap, and 
hopefully the State legislature, when they get the reports of 
accountability and progress and success, then decide to raise that cap.
  So I want to salute the gentleman for his helpful ideas to contribute 
to the better understanding of this new idea.

                              {time}  1315

  Last, I just want to say this, and this is my concern with the 
legislation. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Tierney] says, ``Beginning on page 7, strike line 1 and all that 
follows through line 21 on page 8.''
  When we reach page 8, we see some fairly important aspects of 
accountability and adding more charters that President Clinton has 
talked about in his radio address when he endorsed this.
  On page 8 it says, ``The State law regarding charter schools ensures 
that each charter school has a high degree of autonomy over its budget 
and expenditures.''
  We certainly think one of the exemplary features of charter schools 
is its flexibility, is its autonomy and putting its own budget 
together, is its ability not to be unfairly regulated.
  Now, regulated with civil rights, absolutely; regulated with IDEA, 
Individuals with Educational Disabilities, absolutely; but not some of 
the other burdensome Federal regulations coming from Washington that 
think they know best.
  Last, on page 8, something that would be taken out with the 
amendment, ``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 set forth under State law or the school's 
charter.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROEMER. So I would say that the debate we have had on the cap is 
a very helpful one, and I applaud the gentleman's efforts in committee, 
and I applaud what he has tried to do with this amendment.
  I think that the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and I have 
tried to reach a bipartisan agreement on incentives and on a balance in 
this tension between not slamming down the number of charter schools 
that may naturally grow in a State, but also providing accountability 
language.
  The second point is, I really think on page 8 there are some helpful 
contributions to this legislation, and we would not want those taken 
out by this amendment.
  Since my friend from California did ask about 3 minutes ago for time, 
I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief because I, too, 
had intended to quote the President from his Saturday, October 18, 
radio address.
  Again, I just want to stress to my colleagues, without compounding or 
exacerbating any disagreements that may exist within the ranks of House 
Democrats, but I just want to refer them again to the President's 
comments. ``I endorse bipartisan efforts in the House to help 
communities open 3,000 more charter schools in the coming years by 
giving States incentives to issue more charters.''
  The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] would 
not only remove that provision from the bill but obviously run contrary 
to the President's endorsement of that particular provision in the 
legislation.
  The other thing I wanted to stress very quickly is, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] is right when he says what we want to 
do is, in these so-called out-years, the subsequent years of this 
legislation, after we have had a transition period, direct the money to 
the States through the priority factors, the priority considerations.
  But the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] does not mention 
that we have had selection criteria for State education agencies in the 
Federal statute since the very beginning of this program. I do not know 
if the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] objects to any of 
those selection criteria for State education agencies.
  Furthermore, we have selection criteria for eligible applicants. That 
means local charter schools. Does the gentleman object to any of those 
selection criteria for eligible applicants, such as it says the 
Secretary shall take into consideration such factors as the quality of 
the proposed curriculum and instructional practices, the degree of 
flexibility afforded by the State education agency and, if applicable, 
the

[[Page H10196]]

local education agency to the charter school, the extent of community 
support for the application, the ambitiousness of the objectives of the 
charter school, the quality of the strategy for assessing achievement 
of those objectives, and, last, the likelihood that the charter school 
will meet those objectives and improve educational results for 
students?
  We have always had criteria; it has always been part of the Federal 
law. We are building on or adding to those selection criteria, and we 
are giving, again, the Secretary and the Department some direct 
congressional guidance as to how the new money over the $51 million 
will be distributed to the States.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I was going to ask for the same 1 minute the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] got. I liked that one.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I understand what the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] says when he talks about the C paragraph, the 
third priority. But I think, as Mr. Riggs stated, the base statute 
already has a number of criteria that we require be met. Amongst them 
are a number of accountability situations.
  So I would not object if you wanted to amend my language to leave 
that language in there, but I think you have a sufficient amount of 
language on accountability.
  But that is not the issue. I think we are willing, I guess, from what 
I hear, we do not want to regulate any other aspect, we want to 
regulate the pace at which States decide how fast they want to go into 
this limited venture.
  I think that is where the mistake comes in. Yes, we want to give 
incentives within a reasonable degree, but the only way to give 
incentives is not exclusive to adding these priorities. The fact we are 
giving $49 million extra in funds is certainly an incentive for States 
to participate. They can see something going on here, and they can hear 
that this is something they want to get involved with.
  The part I object to is, your intention to give the incentive may 
have the effect of disqualifying some people. I want to say there are 
other ways to do the incentives. I offered as part of this, grandfather 
in those States that have these provisions, that have charter schools, 
so that we do not get subject to those disqualifications, and we will 
all proceed along.
  I understand that States do not have a statute yet, and you want to 
encourage them to get one, and you want to encourage them to put more 
schools on the books. Let us do it. If this is the way to do it, fine. 
But do not penalize those of us, a number of us, that already have 
schools that have decided we want to put a cap so we can measure. That 
is prudence. We should reward prudence, not penalize it. I do not think 
any of us want to go forward without having a moment to reflect and 
assess.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and also 
in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Tierney].
  First let me address the legislation. I wanted to commend the 
gentleman from California and the gentleman from Indiana for all of 
their work on this legislation. I think that charter schools hold out 
and in fact are holding out an exciting prospect for American public 
education, and I think they give us an opportunity, as has already been 
said here a number of times this afternoon, to experiment with a number 
of ideas that we think will improve the education of our children. I 
think it allows for in many instances a much greater investment by 
teachers in the running of that school.
  It allows us in many instances to bring people from outside and 
throughout the community to participate in that education, and I think 
it puts a lot of the decisionmaking about the utilization of resources 
where it belongs, at the school site, as those who are working at that 
site on a day-to-day basis can decide what it is that children who 
attend that school need and would benefit the most from.
  So I would hope that this is legislation that would get strong 
support from the House of Representatives, and, again, I thank the two 
gentlemen for bringing it to the floor.
  I would say, however, on this amendment that I still continue to have 
a problem with the cap, because I think it is an area where we are 
tweaking the State decisionmaking authority, where we do not need to.
  Given the hunger in this country for an educational program that 
works, I think charter schools are going to become magnets for 
education policy makers at the States as they try to replicate them and 
reinforce the model and expand them throughout the individual States.
  But I also think it is very important that the States, as we do tread 
this, because simply saying you want charter schools or support charter 
schools doesn't mean we will have successful charter schools. I think 
we ought to do those things that will ensure that these models are in 
fact successful, hopefully that they can be replicated across the State 
and across the country, but we ought to let the State departments of 
education have some say in the determination of that.
  I guess they could have some say with the language in the bill, 
because if they needed to have more charter schools each year than they 
had the year before, they could say 10, 11, 12, and 13, and they would 
qualify for this money. If we are going to have 3,000, California has a 
little over 10 percent of the population, I guess we would have 300 in 
the next 3 years.
  I do not know if our State can really ensure the integrity of this 
system. Tragically, we have seen in a couple of instances, and I do not 
think this should deter anybody from charter schools, but we have seen 
a couple of bad ones, and I think the States ought to have a right and 
the legislatures ought to have a right to stay at that pace.
  I do not think the educational establishment, if people are going to 
use that in a pejorative sense, can stand in front of this idea and be 
successful. I do not think it can happen. I think it is going to grow 
because these schools are going to grow. I just think that the cap just 
does not make sense. We ought to respect the rights of the States to 
make that determination. Some will be too conservative, and some will 
be too liberal.
  I will say, however, if the cap is going to be the criterion for 
money, then States will just decide to put whatever numbers they want 
in so they can have more charter schools 1 year than after the other. 
It will have nothing to do with the quality or credibility that you 
seek in the amendment.
  So I think it is unnecessary, but I also think it is an improper 
place for us in terms of determining how the States will manage the 
growth of charter schools.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out one thing 
that I know my ranking member talked about, and that is when we are 
talking flexibility and making sure that charter schools, as the 
gentleman from California said, giving States that flexibility. Right 
now, we have a $51 million-$41 million split. But in the year 2001 that 
is not going to exist. We are going to crank down more so on the 
requirements to State charter school programs.
  I think that is inherently bad, because what we are doing is further 
restricting. It is almost like a Federal mandate with regard to 
requirements, restricting these charter schools in a way that in most 
cases the Republican side has said no.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two points to help us close on the 
debate here. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] has done an 
excellent job of stating the purpose of his amendment, and there are 
two matters over which I must take issue. The first is his attempt to 
strike the reference in the bill to rewarding those charter schools 
that exercise a high degree of autonomy as opposed to some degree of 
flexibility in the current law.
  The whole idea of charter schools is to encourage new schools to take

[[Page H10197]]

chances by changing the way that they go about educating children. Let 
me offer a specific example.
  In Florida, it is very pleasing to see the number of charter schools 
that have found a way to reduce the cost of administration of an 
elementary school and take those savings and put them into a smaller 
class size, which is currently ranging at about 17 children per 
teacher, and already getting above average performance from students 
who were clearly performing below average in the traditional school 
setting.
  That is the kind of innovation we want to encourage. This is not an 
entitlement, this is a grant program. We want to reward quality. We 
want to challenge schools. We want to err on the side of innovation 
here. So I think it is terribly important, as this argument moves into 
the Senate, that we jealously protect that provision of the bill that 
encourages a high degree of autonomy among charter schools.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask one question of you, 
and then I will yield back for the answer in a second.
  But this priority schedule that is laid out there talks about a high 
degree of autonomy. In the base legislation, it already establishes a 
charter school would have to have some degree of autonomy. Is the 
gentleman prepared to tell Massachusetts which level of autonomy it 
must decide is best for its charter schools? Because it has a couple of 
levels now, and it may decide to have more. When it goes to getting to 
that cap, women are going to stand in there and tell them if they do 
not pick the right one, they do not qualify.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and just for the 
opportunity to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Tierney], because I think he raises a legitimate question.
  The problem is in the underlying bill, the current statute that we 
are seeking to amend with this legislation. It just uses that generic 
phrase, ``high degree of autonomy.'' We have gone to the next step to 
try to define ``high degree of autonomy'' as being those States that 
recognize a charter school as its own independent school district, its 
own LEA, and so that is what we are attempting to do in the 
legislation.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
basically, we have taken that determination away from the States, and 
they do not get a chance to try to have as much participation as 
possible if they cannot get it through the gentleman's formula, and 
that is my point.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, two responses. One is we should 
hold up a high standard of innovation, and second, we should expect, as 
we have in the past, common sense to be exercised by the Secretary of 
the Department of Education to assure that Massachusetts and other 
States understand what a high degree of autonomy means and it is used 
in a way that allows these schools to continue.
  The second point I would like to make to conclude pertains to the 
cap. I think that there are valid concerns about how the Federal 
Government is affecting the ability of States to control quality with 
charter schools, because we know there are going to be mistakes, and we 
want to preserve the ability of States to move in a guarded fashion in 
terms of the growth of charter schools. But I think it is important to 
point out that the intent behind the bill is not in any way to 
discriminate against those States who have already embarked upon a 
charter school program.
  So I believe there is some doubt that exists here today as to whether 
those States who no longer choose to grow because they are up against a 
cap are somehow disadvantaged by the fact that the money is set aside 
for those States without caps. But keep in mind the basic point that if 
a State is stopping to grow because of a cap, the chances it will need 
any additional money for start-up costs are going to be very, very 
limited.
  So I am hopeful that as we more closely study this particular aspect 
of the debate we can reach some compromise in the Senate, some 
compromise in the conference committee to address the very valid 
concerns raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 288, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Tierney] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Martinez

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Martinez:
       Page 12, after line 11, insert the following:
       (L)(i) an assurance that the charter school that is a local 
     educational agency or the local educational agency in which 
     the charter school is located, as the case may be, will 
     comply with the requirements of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) with 
     respect to the provision of special education and related 
     services to children with disabilities in charter schools; 
     and
       (ii) a description of how the charter school that is a 
     local educational agency or the local educational agency in 
     which the charter school is located, as the case may be, will 
     ensure, consistent with such requirements, the receipt of 
     special education and related services by children with 
     disabilities in charter schools; and
       Page 12, line 12, strike ``(L)'' and insert ``(M)''.

  Mr. MARTINEZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment 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.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, back in 1975, Congress passed the bill 
IDEA. It was differently named then, but it encompasses the same bill 
that was recently just passed earlier, that guarantees a free and 
appropriate education for children with disabilities. That bill was a 
bicameral and bipartisan bill and passed overwhelmingly in both Houses 
and was signed by the President with great celebration.
  If the premise is and was of that bill that children with 
disabilities should receive a free and appropriate public education, 
and in that case, I am concerned that we should be concerned in every 
education program that we have out there, or any kind of public school 
that we have out there, and charter schools are public schools, I think 
we need to ensure that concept in those charter schools.
  This amendment is doing two things. One, it is ensuring that; and the 
other is that it is providing an advanced warning to charter schools 
and people who would start charter schools that there is an extra cost 
involved in teaching children with disabilities. Initially, that is the 
reason why children with disabilities were being denied free and 
appropriate education, because schools did not want to undertake the 
various difficulties in providing that free and appropriate education 
for these children with disabilities.
  So I offer this amendment, and as I understand, the language has been 
worked out with the chairman of the committee, and the chairman of the 
committee is willing to accept the amendment with the language that we 
have worked out.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, at this point we have had numerous, sort of 
an ongoing discussion here. I think what the gentleman has prepared is 
very thoughtful and I think we have reached a good bipartisan 
compromise, and we are prepared to accept his amendment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman.

[[Page H10198]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter 
into a colloquy with the Chairman. Since the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] is the prime sponsor of this legislation, I would like to 
engage in a colloquy for the purposes of establishing a legislative 
history on the matter which I speak.
  My concern deals with language amending section 10306 regarding the 
Federal formula allocations to charter schools. I would ask the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] if he could please clarify the 
intent behind the section.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to clarify the intent behind 
section 10306 in the bill.
  Let me say that it is not our intent to create a disparity in funding 
or eligibility as to Federal categorical education funds, Federal 
taxpayer aid for public education between traditional public schools 
and charter schools within a local education agency.
  Furthermore, it is not our intent to create a new formula-driven 
funding stream or program to charter schools, other than what they are 
currently eligible to receive under title I, part A of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, and I hope this addresses the gentleman's 
concerns.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
clarifications.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Tierney], on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 260, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 610]

                               AYES--164

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--260

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Armey
     Cubin
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, Sam
     Riley
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  1400

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Messrs. MURTHA, MASCARA, 
and HOLDEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mrs. KENNELLY of Connectiut, 
and Messrs. FLAKE, ROTHMAN, MINGE, SHAYS, CLAY, CONYERS, LoBIONDO, and 
LUTHER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
2616, the Charter Schools Act of 1997. This program, begun as a Federal 
grant to provide seed funds for public charter schools just 3 years 
ago, is a waste of taxpayer funds, does nothing for the 90 percent of 
school children who are in public schools, and is a further drain upon 
the scant resources that our public school now have. As a former public 
school teacher, I believe in our public schools because our public 
schools work. What is truly needed is comprehensive, holistic school 
reform, not piecemeal, politically expedient solutions.
  We all agree that our public schools need to be reformed. But we must 
first consider any and all changes to our charter schools as part of a 
comprehensive, complete review of all of our public school education 
programs. This review must take into consideration the fact that many 
of our Nation's public schools are in need of significant repair. The 
changes that this legislation proposes does little to improve upon the 
quality of not just public schools, but charter schools. There is 
woefully little strengthening of the oversight and accountability of 
our charter schools in H.R. 2616.
  In the House Committee on Education and the Workforce report on H.R. 
2616, ``it was recently reported by the Michigan Department of 
Education that charter schools in its State posted substantially lower 
scores than other public schools on State assessment tests.'' If

[[Page H10199]]

charter schools in Michigan are not working better than the regular 
public schools, where is the investment in education of our taxpayer's 
dollars? It is ironic that while Congress has not approved legislation 
that will address our overcrowded and dilapidated schools, we want to 
expand charter schools.
  In summary, I support the complete and comprehensive overhaul of our 
Nation's public schools. I cannot support initiatives designed to 
further siphon off the scarce resources for our Nation's public 
schools, and that is why I am voting against this bill on final 
passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Gibbons] having assumed the chair, Mr. 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 288, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 367, 
noes 57, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No 611]

                               AYES--367

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--57

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Coyne
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Frank (MA)
     Goode
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mink
     Moakley
     Neal
     Olver
     Paul
     Payne
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Slaughter
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tierney
     Torres
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cubin
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Owens
     Riley
     Schiff
     Thompson
     Yates

                              {time}  1422

  Mr. STOKES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. NADLER and Mr. LoBIONDO changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 611, I was unavoidably 
detained and did not vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''


          Motion to Reconsider the Vote Offered by Mr. Doggett

  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.


                  Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Madam Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mrs. Emerson]. The question is on the motion 
to table the motion to reconsider offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256, 
noes 163, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 612]

                               AYES--256

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton

[[Page H10200]]


     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--163

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Collins
     Cubin
     Ehlers
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Klink
     Ney
     Pascrell
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Royce
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  1442

  Ms. DUNN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________