Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)

[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.''.

[[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.

____________________