[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13116-13126]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2218, EMPOWERING PARENTS THROUGH 
 QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
       1892, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 392

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2218) to amend the charter school program 
     under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and

[[Page 13117]]

     the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. (a) At any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1892) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2012 for intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the United States Government, the Community 
     Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
     Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments 
     specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
       (b) In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
     an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated 
     August 31, 2011. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
       (c) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc 
     described in subsection (f).
       (d) Each amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole.
       (e) All points of order against amendments printed in part 
     B of the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en 
     bloc described in subsection (f) are waived.
       (f) It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or his designee to 
     offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in 
     part B of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier 
     disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
     for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence or their designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. The original proponent of an amendment included in 
     such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       (g) At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  A motion to proceed with regard to a joint 
     resolution of disapproval specified in subsection (a)(1) of 
     section 3101A of title 31, United States Code--(a) shall be 
     in order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his 
     designee; and (b) may be offered even following the sixth day 
     specified in subsection (c)(3) of such section but not later 
     than the legislative day of September 14, 2011.

                              {time}  1240

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 392 provides for a structured rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents 
Through Quality Charter Schools Act, and H.R. 1892, the Fiscal Year 
2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.
  My colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and 
I have been working to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. H.R. 2218, Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter 
Schools, is just one of a series of bills the committee has considered 
this year.
  During committee consideration, this legislation received strong 
bipartisan support, including that of the committee's ranking Democrat 
member, George Miller. H.R. 2218 reauthorizes the charter school 
program and modernizes it by allowing the replication or expansion of 
high quality charter schools in addition to the creation of new charter 
schools.
  The charter school program is important to ensure that parents and 
students have choice in education. With this bill, the House Education 
and the Workforce Committee has begun the bipartisan process of 
reauthorizing ESEA, and I urge my colleagues in the full House to 
support this rule in favor of the bill.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1892, the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
  Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community plays a vital role in our 
national security and defense. The bill was reported out of committee 
by a voice vote, and the committee has worked with the Senate to 
develop a bipartisan, bicameral bill. Therefore, I urge my colleagues 
to support the bill.
  Under this rule, the Rules Committee has made it in order to consider 
six Democrat amendments and three Republican amendments to the 
Intelligence Authorization bill. We have also made in order five 
Democrat amendments, two bipartisan amendments, and one Republican 
amendment to the charter school bill.
  I am pleased to work with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to 
report rules for floor debate and the consideration of legislation that 
promotes transparency and participation.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will be discussing two good bills. Both bills 
under this rule are bipartisan bills. One will support students across 
this Nation, give parents better choices, improve the quality of our 
charter schools in our country; and so, too, we will improve and 
enhance the intelligence gathering of our Nation that keeps us safe 
under the authorization bill.

[[Page 13118]]

  The Quality Charter Schools Act will improve our global economic 
standing by improving student access to quality and effective public 
charter schools.
  I find, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is necessary to help educate some 
of our colleagues on the definition of what charter schools are. 
Charter schools are established by school districts or other 
authorizers. They are public schools and have to accept all students 
equally. The concept of these schools is that they have site-based 
management. So, again, they are public schools with site-based 
management. That, in brief, is the definition of a charter school.
  Now, that is not better or worse than a district running a school. It 
can be better; it can be worse. And as we look across the country, we 
see examples of good charter schools and bad charter schools. Just 
because something is a charter school certainly doesn't mean it is 
good.
  What we've tried to do with this bill is improve the quality of the 
authorizing practices of the States and the districts as they go into: 
A, initially evaluating charter schools and making sure they serve at-
risk students and show demonstrated success in closing the achievement 
gap; and, B, making sure that they follow through on what their charter 
contains.
  A charter is a synonym for a contract. Effectively, these schools 
operate through contracts with public authorities, namely authorizers, 
States, State charter institutes, regions, and school districts, and 
they are able to operate under those contracts and fulfill their role 
as public schools.
  What are charter schools not? And I sometimes hear from my 
colleagues, is this corporate control of our schools? Is this some for-
profit thing? No, it is actually irrelevant to that discussion, the 
discussion of charter schools.
  Sometimes for-profit companies are brought in as vendors to run 
schools. Now, this can happen with school districts just as surely as 
it can happen with charter schools. Some of the larger instances of 
this have been school districts because, of course, charter schools are 
much more mom and pop. But that is a separate discussion about what 
vendors can and cannot be brought in to actually run public schools.
  In the State of Colorado, as an example, we don't allow any for-
profit institutions to hold a charter. Now, certainly we don't restrict 
charters to school districts, and they bring in a variety of vendors. I 
think every school district in the country uses private, for-profit 
textbook vendors as an example. But we would be against managing out of 
D.C. what vendors they bring in. In fact, charter schools and school 
districts have great discretion about what vendors they use.
  But what this bill does is it effectively ups the ante on the 
accountability, the oversight, and also assisting with the growth of 
quality charter schools. Many charter schools across the country focus 
on particular areas of learning or emphasize particular aspects of 
curriculum. We have excellent art charter schools, college prep charter 
schools, Montessori charter schools, core knowledge, English language 
acquisition, outdoor learning, and education charter schools.
  They can function more independently than a large district because 
they do have site-based management that allows for operational 
flexibility. They can have different school calendars, different school 
days, and different curriculums. This freedom allows the charters to 
function autonomously in areas that can benefit children's success in 
school.
  And again, with experimentation, not everything you try is going to 
work. And, of course, for every example of a charter school that 
successfully serves at-risk kids, there are also counterexamples of 
charter schools that are doing as poorly, or more so, than some of the 
failing neighborhood schools that the children were in before.
  I have direct experience founding and running several charter schools 
in Colorado that filled particular education niches. I founded and 
served as superintendent of New America School. When I saw that many 
school districts in my State were dropping funding for older students 
that were still learning English and there weren't the types of 
programs to keep new immigrants in high school through a diploma, I 
approached several school districts about approving a charter school 
for this population, for 16- to 21-year-old English language learners. 
We were granted several charters. New America School now operates in 
Colorado and New Mexico and has served thousands of English language 
learners, helping them achieve a high school diploma through meeting 
their real-life needs.
  Again, we really worked backwards from where the customers were. Why 
weren't these students in school in the first place? Many of them had 
real-life obstacles. They had day jobs; so they needed a night school. 
Forty percent of the young women had children; so they needed either 
on-site daycare or some sort of daycare voucher that we were able to 
help them supply.
  And just as importantly, we made sure that every member of the staff, 
the teachers at the school, every single one of them, is passionate 
about helping new immigrants learn English; and that is what brought 
them to our school and actually improved the faculty morale because 
they were able to practice their passion rather than it being an 
afterthought as it was in some of the other conventional schools.
  I also founded the Academy of Urban Learning, which is focused on 
educating homeless students in Denver.
  Right here in Washington, D.C., we have seen the success of several 
excellent charter schools that have outperformed other public schools, 
including the KIPP schools.
  So we have seen across this country, as a result of the charter 
school movement, great experimentation, some successes and some 
failures. It's time, 10 years on, to learn from our experiences with 
charter schools and replace the Federal authorizing act with one that 
can really up the ante, take the learning that has occurred over the 
last decade into account and improve both the quality of charter 
schools generally and the quantity of good charter schools across our 
country.

                              {time}  1250

  This bill would update the existing Federal initiatives. We provide 
critical investment in quality alternatives. The bill carves out 15 
percent of the funding for facilities, capital, and credit 
enhancements, and the remaining 80 percent would go to start new 
charter schools. The bill would require States to provide 90 percent of 
their grants to charter school authorizers and operators. It also 
incorporates much of the language from a bill that Mr. Paulsen of 
Minnesota and I introduced last session and this session, the All-STAR 
Act, which would add for the first time Federal law State-level funding 
for expansion of successful charter schools.
  So, again, when we have examples of what works in public education, 
why not do more of it? Yes, we want to turn around failing schools. 
Yes, we need to improve upon what doesn't work. And yes, we need to 
hold charter schools that are not working fully accountable under the 
law. But when we have an example of something that works, we should 
support serving more kids. As a simple example, in my State and 
district, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy in Westminster is a K-8 
charter school that opened just 4 years ago. I'm glad, by the way, that 
one of the amendments made in order under this rule is an amendment 
from Mr. Paulsen and I that would specify that schools that have 3 
years of demonstrated success are eligible for expansion grants, 
because this school has only been around for 4 years. It has an 
extended year, extended day program. It provides after-school tutoring, 
full-day kindergarten. Every student studies chess and tennis. The 
student population maps the kind of a traditional at-risk population, 
with 95 percent Latino, 86 percent English language learners, 93 
percent free and reduced lunch. This means these are poor and working 
families. Yet, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy has scored far above 
the State average, including our wealthy suburban districts like some 
of the other areas that I represent, in the past 3 years. They scored 
95 to 100 percent proficient in math, between 77 and

[[Page 13119]]

97 percent proficient in reading and writing, and for third- and fifth-
graders they've averaged 20 percent higher than the State averages. 
Other successful charter schools in Colorado, like the Denver School of 
Science and Technology, have also achieved positive outcomes with low-
income students.
  I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to talk about many of the 
amendments made in order under this bill. We did in the Rules Committee 
propose an open rule for these bills, and it would have been nice to 
have a more thorough discussion, which is why I'll be opposing this 
rule. But I am glad I did make in order several amendments, including 
one of mine.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule also brings another very important bill to the 
floor, the Fiscal Year 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act. This bill 
continues the recent bipartisan tradition of passing authorization 
bills in order to reform and conduct oversight of our intelligence 
community. Every Member of this body believes strongly in keeping our 
country safe. When we're discussing the threats to our Nation and the 
war on terror, the front line of that war is our intelligence-gathering 
apparatus and our intelligence community. In this time of budget 
constraint we know we need to spend our money wisely. I've often argued 
that instead of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars invading 
countries preemptively, we should use our force selectively, including 
targeted collection of intelligence about where threats arise.
  This bill makes a balanced compromise between budget realities and 
our national security need. This authorization did find savings in 
various aspects of the intelligence community. It proposes to curb 
post-personnel growth while protecting our capabilities. While it 
invests in select high-priority needs, it also achieves savings by 
handling contractors similar to the way the President handles pay for 
civilian employees.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that this body was able to come together with 
both of the committees of jurisdiction, Intelligence and Education and 
Workforce, around strong bipartisan compromise under these two bills. 
And while I wish we had the opportunity to further discuss additional 
recommendations for amendments on the floor, I am appreciative that in 
fact there will be a robust discussion with regard to the charter 
school bill under this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for his support of the bill and support of the concept of charter 
schools. I want to congratulate him on his involvement and say that I 
think this is a great example of bipartisan cooperation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague of mine on the Rules 
Committee, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk just for a couple of minutes about 
a serious matter that relates to the Intelligence bill that we will 
later consider.
  For the past decade, Colombia's intelligence agency, the Department 
of Administrative Security, or the DAS, has engaged in illegal 
activities. Created to investigate organized crime, insurgents, and 
drug traffickers, the DAS instead provided paramilitary death squads 
with the names of trade unionists to be murdered and carried out 
illegal surveillance on journalists, human rights defenders, political 
opposition leaders, and Supreme Court judges. American cash, equipment, 
and training to help shut down drug trafficking may have been used for 
spy operations, smear campaigns, and threats against civil society 
leaders in Colombia. Several U.S. agencies aided the DAS--the State 
Department, Pentagon, DEA, CIA, and DIA--even as scandal after scandal 
after scandal became publicly known. It was only in April, 2010, when 
U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield suspended U.S. aid to the DAS, 
diverting those resources to the Colombian National Police.
  Yesterday, Congresswoman Schakowsky and I sent a letter to the 
Secretaries of State and Defense, the U.S. Attorney General, and the 
CIA Director, asking them to provide Congress with a comprehensive 
report on all forms of U.S. aid to the DAS and to tell us what the DAS 
used the aid for. It's not too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. There has been 
a shocking lack of oversight over all the U.S. aid that poured into the 
DAS over the past decade. Getting to the bottom of this is what 
oversight is all about. Colombia appears to be doing its part. The 
Attorney General is carrying out an aggressive investigation and series 
of prosecutions. Six former high-ranking intelligence officials have 
confessed to crimes. More than a dozen other operatives are on trial, 
with more still under investigation. President Santos has promised to 
dismantle the DAS and replace it with a new intelligence agency. But in 
the meantime, the old structures still remain. Witnesses cooperating 
with the Attorney General find themselves and their families 
threatened, and human rights defenders even now are still under 
surveillance.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that U.S. intentions were good, but I also 
believe the DAS was generally up to no good. I find it impossible to 
understand how the State Department and Embassy officials can say with 
certainty that absolutely no U.S. aid funding was ever used by the DAS 
for criminal purposes. Congress must insist on safeguards to ensure 
that no funding, equipment, training, or intelligence-sharing with any 
Colombian intelligence agency is used for illegal surveillance or 
criminal activities now and in the future.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. The administration or Congress must prohibit any 
further funding for the DAS, including aid in the pipeline, until the 
Attorney General has completed all investigations and prosecutions, 
finds out who ordered these illegal activities, and President Santos 
has completely dismantled the current agency. I ask the committee 
chairman and ranking member to guarantee the Members of this House that 
no further aid will be provided to the DAS, and if that prohibition is 
not explicitly in this bill, that they will work with the Senate to 
include it in the final conference report.

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 2, 2011.]

                      Colombia's Spreading Scandal

       The U.S. provided nearly $6 billion as part of Plan 
     Colombia, an anti-narcotics and counterinsurgency program. 
     But did the money also pay for human rights abuses?
       The United States has long considered Colombia its 
     strongest ally in Latin America. Over the last eight years it 
     has provided the Colombian government with nearly $6 billion 
     as part of Plan Colombia, an ambitious anti-narcotics and 
     counterinsurgency program that has often been held up as a 
     model of cooperation.
       But recent reports in the Washington Post suggest that U.S. 
     assistance intended to combat drugs and terrorism was 
     diverted to Colombian intelligence officials, who used it 
     instead to spy on judges, journalists, politicians and union 
     leaders.
       The Post also reported that the United States was aware of 
     the spying, including illicit wiretapping. Whether that is 
     true is unclear. State Department officials say no one at the 
     U.S. Embassy in Bogota knew about the wiretaps. And President 
     Juan Manuel Santos, who took office last year after the 
     spying controversy erupted, has also denied that the United 
     States had any role in the growing scandal.
       That will do little to quell questions about U.S. 
     involvement, given Plan Colombia's troubled past. A United 
     Nations human rights investigator concluded last year that a 
     large number of Colombian military units were involved in 
     shooting innocent young men and falsely identifying them as 
     rebels in an effort to boost body counts. The extrajudicial 
     killings were alleged to have been carried out by army units 
     that had been vetted by the U.S. State Department and cleared 
     to receive U.S. funding.
       And last year, then-U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield 
     announced that all assistance to Colombia's Department of 
     Administrative Security was being suspended indefinitely 
     following disclosures in the Colombian media that indicated 
     widespread spying abuses. Since then, Colombian authorities 
     have arrested 28 officials, including former President Alvaro 
     Uribe's chief of staff, in connection with the scandal.
       Colombia's government has vowed to dismantle the 
     intelligence agency, and the Santos administration and 
     attorney general have been courageous in investigating the

[[Page 13120]]

     scandal. Now it's up to the United States to move quickly to 
     determine how much aid was provided to the agency and what it 
     was used for. The U.S. must show the same resolve as Colombia 
     has in ferreting out the truth.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, September 7, 2011.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Leon E. Panetta,
     Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
     Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
     U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
     General David H. Petraeus,
     Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, Attorney General 
     Holder and Director Petraeus, We write to request a 
     comprehensive accounting of U.S. assistance to the Colombian 
     government's Department of Administrative Security (DAS) 
     during the period of August 7, 2002 to August 7, 2010. 
     Specifically, we request a full accounting of all funds, 
     training, lethal and non-lethal equipment, intelligence- and 
     information-sharing, technical assistance, facilities 
     construction and any other aid provided to the DAS, its 
     officials, its employees or any of its contractors during 
     this period, whether in Colombia, the U.S., or at other 
     facilities. We further request the information indicate any 
     such aid or information provided to the National and 
     International Observations Group of the DAS.
       As you know, the Colombian Attorney General's Office is 
     undertaking an aggressive investigation and series of 
     prosecutions of illegal activities carried out by the DAS 
     during these years. Six former high-ranking intelligence 
     officials have confessed to crimes and more than a dozen 
     other agency operatives are on trial, and several more are 
     under investigation by the Attorney General or by a special 
     legislative commission of the Colombian Congress.
       These investigations have revealed a vast illegal network 
     of surveillance of nearly all sectors of civil society, 
     including human rights defenders, political party leaders, 
     journalists and members of the Colombian Supreme Court 
     engaged in investigations of elected officials with alleged 
     ties to paramilitary groups or who engaged in corrupt 
     practices. These illegal operations were also connected to 
     threats received by many of the individuals under 
     surveillance, and in some cases the DAS shared information 
     with paramilitary and other violent actors that resulted in 
     the assassinations of trade unionists and other rights 
     defenders.
       Recent articles in the Washington Post (8/21/11) assert 
     that U.S. aid may be implicated in these abuses of power. We 
     are concerned that former President Alvaro Uribe has made 
     public statements claiming the reporters who wrote these 
     articles are terrorist sympathizers (simpatizantes del 
     terrorismo), going so far as to characterize one reporter as 
     a terrorist ally (ocultador del terrorismo), language that 
     increases the level of threat under which journalists work in 
     Colombia. We strongly urge you to make clear to the former 
     president that such statements are unacceptable and ask that 
     he retract them.
       We believe it is important to set the record straight in a 
     clear and transparent manner by providing Congress with a 
     comprehensive report on all forms of U.S. assistance to the 
     DAS. We also believe it is important to provide Congress with 
     this information in as rapid a manner as possible, but 
     assuredly prior to when Congress begins debate on the U.S.-
     Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
       To the maximum extent possible, the information included in 
     this comprehensive report should be provided in an 
     unclassified format; if necessary, a classified annex should 
     be made available for review by all Members of Congress. We 
     further ask that you inquire and coordinate with your 
     counterparts in other departments and agencies that might 
     have been working with the DAS (e.g. Treasury/Internal 
     Revenue Service) to ensure that the report is indeed 
     comprehensive.
       Thank you for your serious attention to this request. We 
     look forward to your timely response and the receipt of this 
     comprehensive report regarding all forms of U.S. support for 
     the DAS over the past decade.
           Sincerely,
                                                James P. McGovern,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                             Janice D. Schakowsky,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my friend on his 
very strong and passionate commitment and let him know that I share our 
desire to ensure that human rights are recognized in Colombia and 
anyplace in the world. I worked with him in the past when he was a 
staff member working for Mr. Moakley on this issue in El Salvador. It 
is imperative that we resolve it and ensure that our tax dollars are 
not being used for any kind of nefarious purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to rise in strong support of 
this rule. I do it because it's been a long time since we've had the 
occurrence that we did yesterday in the House Rules Committee. We just 
came back, as we all know, from this 5-week district work period of 
August, and we had the first meeting in the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1300

  In that meeting, we began with the chairman of the Education and 
Workforce Committee, Mr. Kline, and the ranking member of that 
committee, Mr. Miller; the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence, Mr. Rogers, and the ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger, 
coming before the Rules Committee and offering bipartisan proposals on 
both charter schools for the Education Committee, obviously, and the 
authorization bill from the Intelligence Committee. In fact, I quipped 
at one point during the Rules Committee that maybe we should have a 5-
week break between each Rules Committee meeting so that we can, in 
fact, come together in a bipartisan way and deal with these critically 
important issues.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is a great day, especially as we 
prepare, in just a little less than 7 hours, to hear from the President 
of the United States on an issue that Democrats and Republicans alike 
say needs to be addressed. We all know, from having been in our States 
over the past 5 weeks, that job creation and economic growth are the 
top priorities for the American people. We all represent constituents 
who are hurting. I have friends who have lost their homes, their 
businesses, their jobs, and we want to make sure that we get our 
economy back on track.
  It's my hope that the example that we're going to have today as we 
begin consideration of the charter schools bill and then tomorrow as we 
deal with the intelligence bill--and obviously the bill that we're 
going to be considering today, because of the President's speech 
tonight, will have to carry on into next week, so we will obviously 
have this continued bipartisan spirit on the issue of charter schools 
next week. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we're in a position where we 
can use these two as a model to address this issue of job creation and 
economic growth.
  Now, there is recognition that there are a wide range of views on the 
issue of job creation and economic growth, and we were reminded by the 
Senate minority leader just today of the proverbial Einstein directive 
that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over 
and over again and expecting a different outcome.
  I think that many of us--most all Republicans and some Democrats--
have come to the conclusion that this notion of dramatically increasing 
spending, which is what we went through with the stimulus bill and 
several other issues, is not, in fact, the panacea that we have. And, 
frankly, I don't believe that there is an absolute silver bullet, there 
is not an absolute panacea, but I do believe that we need to try to put 
into place an effort that will reduce the regulatory burden imposed on 
those who are seeking to create jobs in this country. That's one of the 
proposals that we have. And again, I hope that we can work with the 
President on that issue.
  There has also been recognition that, since the Japanese have reduced 
their top rate on job creators, we in the United States of America have 
the highest tax rate on job creators--it's the corporate tax rate--of 
any country in the world. Now, I realize that obviously we know there 
are corporations that, through the tax structure that we have today, 
don't pay that 35 percent rate, but I think that we need to make sure 
that we close loopholes and reduce that top rate. And I'm not the only 
one who has spoken in support of that. Former President Bill Clinton 
has spoken in support of that idea. President

[[Page 13121]]

Barack Obama has spoken in support of that idea.
  And I know that, as I look at my friends on the other side of the 
aisle--at this moment I'm looking at one who shares my view. I'm not 
going to name names, Mr. Speaker, but I'm looking at one who does share 
my view and another who might share my view as well on this issue. So 
there is a bipartisan consensus that if we can reduce that top rate on 
job creators, we have the potential to create jobs and also--and I know 
my friends on both sides of the aisle share this notion--generate an 
increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, thereby 
dealing with this tremendous fiscal problem that we have.
  We have our joint select committee that is going to be dealing with 
the issue of deficit reduction. And we know that economic growth would 
be the single best way to generate the revenues that we need to pay 
down the debt and deal with the overall fiscal challenges we have and 
have the resources necessary for the priorities that are out there.
  Another issue, building on what was said by my friend from Worcester 
earlier, he mentioned the issue of Colombia. I happen to believe that 
if we look at the pending trade agreements that have been, 
unfortunately, languishing for 4 years, we need to make sure that we 
bring those forward. I am very encouraged by the fact that the 
President of the United States has indicated his willingness to do 
that. I also want to congratulate Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor for 
the letter that they sent to the President saying we want to find these 
areas of agreement, and the trade issue is one of them.
  I don't speak for every single Republican, but I speak for most all 
Republicans who believe very, very strongly that the notion of opening 
up new markets around the world for job creation and economic growth 
here in the United States, creating union and nonunion jobs is 
something that would take place if we were to pass the Korea, Colombia, 
and Panama agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many people who believe that somehow passing 
these agreements will open up a flood of foreign products coming into 
the United States, undermining the ability to create jobs here in the 
United States, when, in fact, the opposite will be the case because 
Korea, Colombia, and Panama today have, by and large, free access to 
the U.S. consumer market. That's a good thing. It's a good thing 
because it allows that single mother who is trying to make ends meet, 
going to Wal-Mart or Kmart or Target or wherever, to buy products that 
are affordable. That's a positive thing. That's a good thing for our 
economy.
  What we need to do is we need to recognize that now we need to open 
up those markets so that while things come in from Korea, and Colombia 
especially, we need to do what we can to get into their markets. There 
are 40 million consumers in Colombia.
  Manufacturing jobs will be created here. Caterpillar, John Deere, 
Whirlpool, other great manufacturing companies here in the United 
States would have access to those markets.
  And on the Korea deal, Mr. Speaker, it will be the single largest 
bilateral free trade agreement in the history of the world, allowing us 
to have the ability to sell our automobiles and other products into the 
Korean market.
  So this is an area where I believe that, again, recognizing that 
union and nonunion jobs will be created here in the United States, that 
this can be an area of bipartisan agreement, and I know that the 
President will clearly talk about the imperative of these in the 
address he's going to be giving right behind me early this evening.
  What we're dealing with today, Mr. Speaker, is a very positive thing 
on the issue of charter schools, and I laud my friend from Colorado, 
who has done such a great job in starting charter schools and improving 
charter schools.
  I also want to comment on the statement that was made in the Rules 
Committee yesterday by the former chairman and now the ranking member 
of the Education Committee, Mr. Miller, who said that for many years he 
was a strong opponent of charter schools and now, for many years, he 
has been a strong proponent of charter schools, recognizing that we can 
go through a learning process here. And I quipped that one of our 
former colleagues said that ours is one business where you can never 
admit to having learned anything because, obviously, if you admit to 
having learned anything, you've flip-flopped.
  The fact is we all are learning and we should be proud of the fact 
that we've learned. I congratulate--I probably will hurt my friend Mr. 
Miller by praising him here, but I will say that the process that he 
has gone through on this issue of charter schools is something that I 
believe is a very, very good and positive thing. It's something that we 
all need to learn from, that experience that he had on the issue of 
charter schools, to be willing to listen to our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle on a wide range of issues.
  That is why I think that this rule, enjoying bipartisan support--we 
have allowed many more Democratic amendments than Republican amendment 
in the rule itself. We're going to have a free-flowing debate on this 
issue, and then of course the very important intelligence authorization 
bill. Then tonight, I hope we can have again these areas of agreement 
so that we can get our fellow Americans who have been losing their 
homes, their businesses, and their jobs back on track.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California laid down an excellent 
framework for the potential of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit 
Reduction to accomplish their mandate; namely, bringing down tax rates 
by eliminating loopholes in a way that effectively eliminates 
expenditures in the Tax Code. For whether something is a subsidy or a 
tax credit, it is very much an expenditure.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to join with my colleague, first of 
all, to wish the President well and to work together in a bipartisan 
manner to put Americans back to work, put them to work now, and keep 
them working.
  I am supportive of the Intelligence authorization bill for a number 
of reasons dealing with the issue of investing in new positions to 
select high priority needs as FBI surveillance, so increasing the 
personnel. I'm concerned about the cuts in personnel. The language is 
very appropriate. In these days, as we celebrate 9/11, I'm concerned 
about what is appropriate.
  I'm also interested in moving forward on diversity. We should ensure 
that our intelligence community reflects the diversity of America, from 
African Americans to Asians, Latinos, Muslims, people speaking 
different languages, to be more effective to protect this country.
  The DNI is going to conduct a review to determine the security 
implications of moving intelligence systems. I think that is important. 
I think it is important, as well, to collect information about drug 
trafficking. And I certainly think it's important to again, as I said, 
talk about the question of the work force.
  I am concerned about the requests that I understand may be in the 
bill on information about Guantanamo Bay detainees, information that 
could undermine our security. And I am questioning the value of making 
the Director of the National Security Agency, a Senate conferee, to 
juxtapose that person in the midst of controversial politics.
  But I am glad, and I thank Mr. Polis for his leadership on charter 
schools. I'm proud to say that I've been to the Victory Charter School 
in Texas, in Houston, the Harmony Charter School, the KIPP Charter 
School, the Yes Charter School, and a school district, a public system 
that I am working with, and I love public schools, I am a product of 
public schools. The North Forest Independent School District, it's 
finding its way to embrace and coalesce with charter schools.
  What is the call for that? It is the education of our children with 
the

[[Page 13122]]

most important level of education ever, excellence. It is for our 
children to pass tests, but it is for our children to think and to 
create and to invent. And I think we can work with charter schools, in 
particular, who are focusing on science, technology, engineering, and 
math where there are young people who are actually doing medical center 
level research, cures by middle schoolers and high schoolers.
  So I hope that we will deal with the Intelligence bill. I associate 
myself with the gentleman from Massachusetts. I'm concerned about the 
human rights violations in Colombia, the monies that may be going to 
the DAS, and the killing of trade unionists. It's all right to be a 
neighbor, but it is horrible to take intelligence funds and be part of 
the killing of trade unionists.
  Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the whip, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I also thank the 
gentlelady from North Carolina as well.
  Mr. Speaker, while I would prefer us to be addressing a 
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, today's legislation reflects 
bipartisan support for innovation in public schools and improving 
educational opportunities for students who still lack access to a high-
quality education.
  I know this rule that we are dealing with deals with both bills. I am 
for the rule. I think it's a rule that provides for two pieces of 
legislation that enjoy bipartisan support.
  The Chesapeake Public Charter School, a K-8 school located in my 
district, has developed a year-round school model which embeds the arts 
and environmental studies throughout its curriculum. This school hopes 
to, one day, expand its successful model through its existing charter 
with our local school system and would be able to do so with funding 
from this bill.
  As we consider this bill today, it's unfortunate that after 9 months 
in session, however, we are still not bringing jobs bills to this 
floor. So today, and throughout the fall, Democrats will offer Make It 
in America amendments at every opportunity to highlight ways we can 
create jobs and strengthen our economy.
  Today, Democrats are proposing two Make It in America amendments. I 
would say parenthetically that Mr. Garamendi had an excellent 
amendment. It wasn't made in order. He's going to ask that we get to it 
by the previous question.
  Congressman Lujan's amendment, however, focuses on sharing best 
practices in instruction and professional development in the STEM 
subjects to develop a more competitive and highly skilled work force. 
America needs that.
  And Congresswoman Davis' amendment reminds us that the primary 
objective of this bill is to use the innovation of charter schools to 
improve educational outcomes so all students can make it in America.
  The jobs of the future require a high-quality elementary and 
secondary education, which lead to high-quality postsecondary education 
and training components. We need to make sure that we are preparing 
students for the diversity of jobs that awaits them, the jobs that will 
bring home good wages, the jobs that will improve our economy in the 
long term.
  I believe charter schools can play a valuable role in that objective, 
which is why I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate that. We've got a great charter 
school dealing with science and technology in Apple Valley, California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It's a fabulous school, and that model is 
working with our local people creating opportunities for jobs, et 
cetera. I like your idea. I may very well join you in some of those 
amendments, but at least join you in supporting this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, when I speak about Make It in America, 
there is not a person on this floor, the most conservative, the most 
liberal, and everybody in between, who is not for our young people and 
all of our people making it in America. I'm hopeful that we can forge a 
bipartisan coalition to promote legislation which will promote making 
it in America.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman further yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has 
again expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Presuming that, I mean, this is really a 
good idea. If we can get all the teachers unions in California to join 
us in this sponsoring of charter schools, then I'd really get excited 
about it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to make Mr. Garamendi of California's 
amendment in order.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I proposed to the Rules 
Committee an amendment about making it in America, one more way we can 
build jobs here in this country by using our own tax money.
  In the charter schools legislation there is some $300 million a year 
authorized for the construction of charter schools, the enhancement, 
the improvement of those schools. Now, where will the material come 
from? Where will the heating and air conditioning systems be 
manufactured? Where will the lumber, the concrete, the other materials, 
the high-tech equipment come from? Will it be American-made, or will it 
be made over in China and imported into the United States?
  It seems to me we're about to use $300 million of our tax money, that 
is the American taxpayers' money, to build some schools, or to improve 
some charter schools. All well and good. But why don't we create some 
jobs in addition to that? Why don't we put into this bill an amendment 
that simply says that the Secretary of Education, in prioritizing the 
grants, shall give higher priority to those proposals that would use 
American-made equipment, American-made jobs?
  We can, and I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Lewis, for 
agreeing that we ought to be making it America. This amendment was 
rejected for reasons unknown to me by the Rules Committee, perhaps 
known to them. And if Mr. Dreier were here, or maybe I should ask Ms. 
Foxx, why was this objected to? Why was it not made possible to put 
this amendment on the floor so that we can create American jobs?
  I would note that we're 247 days into this session, and not one bill 
has been put forward by the Republican majority to advance jobs. Here's 
a little chance for us to do it.

                              {time}  1320

  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the gentleman from California that 
Republicans have passed many, many bills in this session that would 
help to create jobs in this country.
  I did a little research this morning on what has happened with bills 
that have gone over to the Senate. A total of 28 bills have passed the 
House and the Senate and been sent to the President for his signature. 
Of those, only six were substantive bills. One of those was the 1099, 
one was the continuing resolution, one was DOD appropriations, a couple 
of bills were bills that came from here, one on lead for toys.
  I think the gentleman from California needs to look to the other body 
to see what is happening to the bills that are passing out of the House 
that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans.
  The problem is not in the House. The problem is in the Senate, that 
as one headline said and one Senator said, the Senate is moribund, and 
I believe that's where the problem lies. It is not with Republicans in 
the House.

[[Page 13123]]

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the urgent priority of this country, and it 
should be of this Congress, is to get Americans back to work. There is 
not a corner of this country that's not been severely afflicted by the 
unemployment crisis in this country.
  Mr. Garamendi proposes that we take a simple idea and put it into 
this bill, and I think he's absolutely right.
  Here's the idea. If we spend a significant amount of money, I think 
it's $300 million, for the purpose of retrofitting and maybe building 
some schools around the country, let's give a preference to schools 
that use American-made products and American-made goods over those that 
do not. I think that's a very commonsense idea. So if a school is going 
to put in solar panels to become more energy efficient and they can 
either buy the solar panels from a company here in the United States or 
one in Asia, let's favor the school that buys the solar panels from the 
United States to create jobs here. This is a simple and good idea. It 
should be on the floor so that we could debate it.
  Now, the dialogue I just heard was it's the Senate fault or it's this 
one's fault. With all due respect to all of our colleagues, Mr. 
Speaker, the days of whose fault it is are over. Long since over. And 
the time has long since passed for us to get to work passing 
commonsense legislation that puts the American people back to work. Mr. 
Garamendi has proposed just such a commonsense piece of legislation.
  I would urge people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can 
consider Mr. Garamendi's amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise also to support the effort of my colleague Mr. Garamendi to 
require that materials made in America be used to construct and 
renovate the charter schools that we're talking about in this 
legislation.
  We have a serious issue in this country, in case the Republicans 
haven't noticed, that we need to create as many jobs as we can. And 
anybody who has made a speech about job creation these days, talking 
about making it in America is a definite applause line. I would just 
like to recommend that. Making it in America is something that really 
has resonated with people all around this country.
  Why would we take taxpayer dollars, when we could spend it on 
products that are made right here, including the building materials 
that we need to upgrade, to create more schools in our country, and buy 
products that are made overseas and support jobs that are outside of 
our country?
  The issue in this bill of creating more schools is so important. In 
the United States, schools on average are 40 years old and actually in 
need of an estimated $500 billion in repairs and upgrades.
  I'm actually introducing a piece of legislation next week that would 
provide $100 billion dollars to repair, renovate, modernize America's 
schools and would create 400,000 construction and 250,000 maintenance 
jobs alone.
  But in addition, what we should be doing is rejecting this previous 
question that's up before us so that we can make a good bill even 
better. This is a bipartisan effort. We've heard from the other side of 
the aisle that these are good ideas. Let's make it better. Vote ``no'' 
and let's add the Garamendi amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act is not perfect. There 
are some provisions that have already received a veto threat from the 
President that need to be amended. Thankfully, the chairman and the 
ranking member have worked together to submit a manager's amendment 
that would do just that.
  It is vital that this manager's amendment pass because of two 
provisions in particular.
  The first would make the Director of the National Security Agency a 
Senate-confirmed position. This would unnecessarily politicize one of 
our most critical intelligence needs. Traditionally, this position has 
already been indirectly subject to confirmation through the Senate's 
confirmation of military officers who have been promoted into the 
position. We can't afford to damage the management of the intelligence 
community in this manner.
  The second provision would modify the reporting requirements 
regarding Guantanamo detainees. This would require the Director of 
National Intelligence to provide State Department cables to the 
Intelligence Committees. While effective oversight is an essential role 
of Congress, we also must not interfere with the ability of the State 
Department to conduct effective diplomatic negotiations. Therefore, I 
call on my colleagues to support the manager's amendment as well as the 
amended version of the underlying bill.
  I also want to thank, with regard to the Charter School bill, 
Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for their excellent work both 
on the bill as well as their manager's amendment that would improve the 
bill in a wide variety of ways, including prioritizing States that 
authorize charters to be their own School Food Authority so that they 
can serve healthy meals to their students, including transportation 
considerations to help ensure that kids have access, and that choice is 
made more meaningful by ensuring that families who don't have the 
ability to carpool or transport their kids to school also have choices 
within the public education system.
  This truly bipartisan bill and manager's amendment really exemplifies 
what the House can do to support good public education and improve 
student outcome.
  I agree with my colleague, Mr. Hoyer, who said that this is a start. 
While many of us would rather see a full reauthorization of ESEA, this 
is a very promising start to what will hopefully be a very productive 
session with regard to education, one of the most important goals of 
this Congress as well as absolutely necessary to improve the economy in 
the long run.
  Unfortunately, one of the amendments disallowed by the Republican 
majority under this rule is one that I proposed to help facilitate 
charter schools in obtaining Federal competitive grant funding by 
adding priority for States that allow charter schools to be LEAs, or 
Local Education Agencies. Effectively, my amendment would have reduced 
paperwork and overhead. If the school districts and charter schools 
agree, the charter schools themselves could effectively function as 
their own fiscal agent for Federal purposes and to compete for Federal 
grants.
  What happens now, and it works in most cases 9 out of 10 times--
unfortunately it's the cases where it doesn't work out that cause the 
difficulty--is charter schools have to go through their LEA, their 
authorizing institute, or their school district in order to apply for 
Federal grants.
  What does this mean? It means there's another set of bureaucrat's 
eyes that have to see every proposal, another person that has to sign 
off. Sometimes this can lead to unnecessary delays. At worst, it can 
lead to missing deadlines if funding applications are submitted to 
districts and not turned around in enough time to meet Federal 
deadlines for grant funding.
  So it would be nice to continue to work on this with the committee, 
and I think that many of us would like to see charter schools 
recognized as LEAs for purposes of Federal funding.

                              {time}  1330

  I am proud to say that, in my home State of Colorado, we were able to 
get this fixed in the last legislative session, and now charter schools 
are recognized as LEAs. In fact, about half of

[[Page 13124]]

the States allow charter schools to be LEAs for Federal purposes.
  A key goal of the bill is to ensure charter schools have equitable 
funding as well. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment by 
Mr. Garamendi of California, one which would give priority to eligible 
entities working with charter schools that plan to use materials made 
in America for the construction or renovation of school facilities. 
Once again, it would make that amendment in order and allow for a 
discussion and vote by the House on that amendment. Republicans blocked 
this germane amendment last night in the Rules Committee by a party-
line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so we can help American workers and allow 
this House to deliberate on an amendment that deserves debate in this 
body.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule as well, having left off several 
amendments that would otherwise improve these bipartisan bills.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 392 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution of this resolution, the amendment printed in 
     section 5 shall be in order as though printed after the 
     amendment numbered 8 in Part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules if offered by Representative Garamendi of California 
     or his designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent.
       Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as 
     follows:

 Amendment to H.R., as Reported Offered by Mr. Garamendi of California

       Page 21, after line 24, insert the following:
       ``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that 
     demonstrate a plan to require charter schools receiving 
     assistance under subsection (a) to use materials that are 
     made in America for the construction and renovation of 
     facilities.''.
       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution ... [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule ... When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 176, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 693]

                               YEAS--226

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry

[[Page 13125]]


     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--176

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Holt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bass (NH)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonner
     Burgess
     Clay
     Culberson
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Johnson (GA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marino
     Miller, Gary
     Neal
     Paul
     Reyes
     Roskam
     Stark
     Van Hollen
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1358

  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. DICKS, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of 
California, Ms. HOCHUL, and Ms. SEWELL changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. WOODALL changed his vote from ``nay to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 693, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 163, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 694]

                               AYES--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--163

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Holt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bass (NH)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonner
     Culberson
     Denham
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Hirono
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Lewis (GA)
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Marino
     McClintock
     Miller, Gary
     Neal
     Paul
     Reyes
     Roskam
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Van Hollen
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1404

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 694 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

[[Page 13126]]



                          ____________________