[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13126-13144]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         EMPOWERING PARENTS THROUGH QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS ACT

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 2218.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 392 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2218.

                              {time}  1405


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2218) to amend the charter school program under the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2218, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act is a key 
component of our efforts to reform the Nation's education system and 
ensure more students have access to a quality learning experience. I 
join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been strong 
proponents of charter schools for the breadth of opportunities they 
offer students and parents.
  These innovative institutions empower parents to play a more active 
role in their child's education and offer students the priceless 
opportunity to escape underperforming schools. They also open doors for 
educators to experiment with the fresh teaching methods uniquely geared 
to meeting the needs of their individual students.
  The stories of charter school success are impressive. Students who 
previously had little hope have been inspired by excellent teachers to 
reach new heights. The tales of groundbreaking programs and initiatives 
at local charter schools have motivated surrounding public schools to 
improve. Parents have witnessed children of all backgrounds transition 
from struggling to excelling as a result of their charter school 
education.
  Unfortunately, there are not enough charter schools to meet demand 
and hundreds of thousands of students remain on wait lists each year.

                              {time}  1410

  The legislation we consider today takes important steps to encourage 
and support the establishment of more high-quality charter schools in 
communities across the United States.
  The bipartisan Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 
will consolidate funding under the Federal Charter School Program into 
the existing State grant program. This will allow State educational 
agencies, State charter school boards, and governors the freedom to 
award subgrants to support new charter schools as well as replicate or 
expand high-quality charter schools.
  To ensure States are facilitating the growth and expansion of charter 
schools, this act will give funding priority to those that lift 
arbitrary caps on the number of charter schools permitted in the State. 
The legislation also will provide priority to States that take 
additional steps to encourage charter school growth, such as allowing 
more than one State or local agency to authorize charter schools, or 
promoting charters as a solution to improve struggling public schools.
  As we work to increase the presence of charter schools in the United 
States, we must also protect limited taxpayer funds and make sure every 
dollar is well spent. It has been said that charter schools are the 
epitome of performance-based education: In exchange for increased 
flexibility and autonomy, these schools are held accountable for 
results. The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 
will ensure charter schools continue to be held accountable by 
supporting an evaluation of schools' impact on students, families, and 
communities, while also encouraging shared best practices between 
charter and traditional public schools.
  Charter schools are a valuable part of our efforts to improve the 
education available to our children. This legislation does not 
represent the whole solution. All of us recognize that additional 
measures must be enacted to support excellence and innovation in the 
American education system. However, this act takes an important step in 
the right direction.
  I am very pleased that members of the Education and Workforce 
Committee have put their differences aside and worked through a very 
bipartisan process to develop an exceptional piece of legislation. I 
would like to thank Members and their staffs for these efforts. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us in supporting 
this positive legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  I rise today in support of the Empowering Parents through Quality 
Charter Schools Act, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee, 
Mr. Kline, and the subcommittee chair, Mr. Hunter, for all of their 
cooperation and support in working with the minority on this side of 
the aisle on this legislation. Both sides of the aisle have strong 
proponents of this legislation and of the charter school movement in 
this country.
  This legislation, because of that cooperation, is the first 
bipartisan piece of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. It passed the Education Committee with bipartisan 
support, and I'm hopeful that it will receive similar support from the 
full Congress.
  This country is facing a severe education crisis. Our schools are 
simply not meeting the educational needs of our students, and it is a 
threat to our global competitiveness and to our economic security.
  Charter schools began 20 years ago as a laboratory for innovation to 
help tackle the stagnant education system at that time and to give 
options to parents who felt helpless. These schools have often become 
the myth busters of what is possible for a demographic of children that 
have all too often been written off. Currently, they serve about 4 
percent of all public school students. In urban areas, that number is 
much higher. Charter schools are not a silver bullet and will not solve 
all of the education challenges, but they have become an important part 
of the education system. We need to update the law to reflect that 
reality.
  The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act encourages 
effective reforms that will help transform schools and communities.
  First, this bill makes significant improvements to the existing 
Charter School Program and addresses issues that we have heard from 
education advocates across the country. It rightfully returns charter 
schools to their original purpose--public schools that

[[Page 13127]]

identify and share innovative practices that lead to improvements in 
academic achievement for all public schools. It requires that charters 
be brought back into the traditional public school system as opposed to 
running in a parallel system. And it requires charters to actually 
serve all student populations and therefore provides more parents with 
real choices.
  Second, this bill prioritizes accountability. It puts student 
achievement first, and it greatly increases the accountability of 
charter school authorizers and oversight by State education 
authorities.
  Third, this bill addresses a recurring problem in charter schools, 
which is the lack of service to students with disabilities and English 
language learners. In this bill, we dramatically improve access for 
underserved populations. We require better recruitment and enrollment 
practices for underserved populations.
  Lastly, this bill rightly focuses on our students and what they need 
to succeed. In many States, high-performing charter schools are a great 
option for some students. These schools are closing achievement gaps 
and shattering the low expectations that have stood in the way of 
student success.
  Charter schools have been on the forefront of bold ideas and 
innovation in education. They have shown that, given the right tools, 
all students can achieve at high levels. We are learning from great 
charter schools about what works for students and what students need to 
be able to compete in the global economy. Replicating this success will 
help our students, our communities, and our economy.
  With this legislation, we can help ensure that the positive reforms 
happening at some charter schools will happen at all charter schools, 
and we can help ensure that best practices are shared throughout that 
school district. But this legislation is only one piece of the 
education reform puzzle. Unfortunately, we are not taking up the whole 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but just one part.
  This country is in the midst of the most dynamic education reform 
atmosphere that I have seen in my tenure in Congress. The 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act presents 
an opportunity to take hold of that momentum and bring our education 
system into the future.
  The bill before us today is good, but we need to do much more. It 
will be a tremendous disservice for our children and our country if we 
do not provide relief for schools that are struggling under an outdated 
law. This relief should come in the form of a full, comprehensive 
reauthorization of ESEA. To do that, we must take on all of the real 
issues facing all our schools, not just charters. We need to address 
accountability, data, assessments, and college- and career ready 
standards and modernizing the teaching profession. We all have to hold 
true to the reason that the Federal Government has a role in education 
in the first place: to ensure equal opportunity for every student in 
this country to access a great education.
  We know what it will take to fix our schools. It isn't a mystery. But 
accomplishing that goal isn't easy. It takes real political will to 
overcome ideology and to stay focused on what's best for kids.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, and 
I hope that we can get to a much more comprehensive reauthorization of 
ESEA in the near future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chair of the 
K-12 Subcommittee.
  Mr. HUNTER. I also want to extend my appreciation to Chairman Kline 
for his leadership and tireless work toward improving the quality of 
education for America's children, as well as Ranking Member Kildee, my 
colleague on the subcommittee and full committee, Ranking Member 
Miller, as well as Jared Polis from Colorado, who is not even on this 
full committee but was very supportive of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools 
Act is a bill that will have a direct impact on our Nation's children. 
Expanding access to high-performing charter schools has the potential 
to make a world of difference for students across the Nation simply by 
adding a much needed layer of choice and competition that is good for 
the entire school system, not just charters.
  Unlike traditional public schools, the charter school model is not 
limited by a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, these institutions 
enjoy increased freedom from State and local rules and regulations in 
exchange for greater accountability.
  Also, the flexibility afforded to charter schools allows teachers and 
school administrators to adjust schedules and course work to better 
serve a wide range of students in their individual communities, 
including disadvantaged students. For example, a Louisiana charter 
school established in the wake of Hurricane Katrina enrolled many 
students who had fallen significantly behind other students their age 
after the disaster forced them to miss a full year of school. Despite 
these difficult circumstances, dedicated teachers tailored ground-
breaking coursework to meet the needs of these students. Student 
achievement levels soared, and this charter school is now the third 
most successful high school in New Orleans.
  Improved academic achievement in even the most troubled school 
districts is one reason why charter schools are in such high demand, 
with more than 400,000 students across the Nation on wait lists. Even 
so, many States have imposed arbitrary caps on the total number of 
charter schools permitted as well as the total number of students 
allowed to attend these schools. These provisions unnecessarily stifle 
parental choice and keep students trapped in low-performing schools.
  Charter schools also have difficulty securing adequate funding. 
Current law awards funding for the establishment of new charter schools 
but does not support funds for replication, updates, or improvements. 
As a result, charter schools with a proven record of high student 
achievement may be unable to secure funding to replicate their 
educational model in a new community.
  The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act will help 
put an end to these barriers to charter school growth by streamlining 
and modernizing the Federal Charter Schools Program.

                              {time}  1420

  The law will facilitate the ability of States to access funding for 
the expansion and replication of the best charter schools through the 
simplification of the Federal grant program. Additionally, the 
legislation incentivizes charter school development by offering 
priority grant funding to States that remove arbitrary caps on charter 
school growth.
  Charter schools provide an opportunity for students who might 
otherwise spend their formative years stuck in subpar classrooms. We 
cannot allow arbitrary measures or partisan differences to stand in the 
way of providing all children access to a high quality education. I 
strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to unite in 
support of a better future for the Nation's students and vote ``yes'' 
on the Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools 
Act. This bill strengthens our Nation's charter schools by making much 
needed improvements to current law, and I commend Chairman John Kline 
and Ranking Member George Miller of the Education and Workforce 
Committee for their leadership on this issue.
  As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, I want to 
help K-12 schools to give us college-ready high school graduates and to 
send them to colleges or 4-year universities. That's why I support H.R. 
2218.
  In regard to accessibility, this bill helps to ensure that English 
language

[[Page 13128]]

learners and students with disabilities have an opportunity to attend 
and excel in high quality charter schools. Under this proposal, charter 
school authorizers must ensure that charter schools comply with the 
Civil Rights Act, as well as Individuals With Disabilities Act and the 
Rehabilitation Act, and monitor the schools in recruiting, enrolling, 
and meeting the needs of students with disabilities and English 
language learners.
  I am pleased that the manager's amendment to H.R. 2218 requires 
authorizers to ensure that charter schools solicit and consider input 
from parents and community members on the implementation and operation 
of charter schools.
  This bill prioritizes high quality charter schools. By adding a new 
definition for high quality charter schools and providing priority 
consideration for States with high quality charter schools, this bill 
encourages States to set higher expectations for our Nation's charter 
schools.
  This legislation improves charter authorizing. H.R. 2218 ensures that 
authorizers within the State monitor the performance of charter schools 
and require charter schools to conduct and publicly report financial 
audits.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. In my congressional district, the IDEA public high 
schools, a network of high quality public charter schools, have done a 
terrific job of preparing minorities, English language learners, and 
students with disabilities for college and careers. Currently, IDEA 
public schools operate 20 schools in 10 communities in the Rio Grande 
Valley.
  This year, all the IDEA public schools were rated exemplary, the 
highest district rating issued by the Texas Education Agency; and our 
IDEA college preparatory school in Donna, Texas, has been recognized as 
one of the very best high schools in the Nation. In fact, 100 percent 
of IDEA public school graduates are enrolled in a community college or 
university.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 2218.
  I applaud Tom Torkelsen, JoAnn Gama, co-founders of the IDEA Public 
Schools, as well as the teachers, parents, staff, and community members 
for their outstanding track record and unwavering commitment to fulfill 
IDEA's mission of `College For All Children.'
  Out nation's public charter schools must strive to be high-performing 
and inclusive; have the highest standards of excellence, 
accountability, and transparency; and foster strong, healthy 
partnerships with traditional public schools that yield successful 
outcomes for all students.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a 
member of the committee and the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, 
Dr. Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act. It's heartening 
to see strong, bipartisan support for a bill that will do a lot of good 
for America's children.
  A high quality education should be the birthright of every American 
child. As a society, we must ensure that they have the tools needed to 
chase their dreams and to succeed in an increasingly competitive global 
marketplace. A child growing up in Cocke County, Tennessee, today will 
some day compete for jobs with young people in China, India, and around 
the world. It's our duty to prepare our children and this great country 
for this reality.
  Sadly, we're falling short in this responsibility. While many of our 
traditional public schools are outstanding, others leave students 
falling through the cracks. That's why an increasing number of parents 
are turning to charter schools to educate their children. But the 
supply has been unable to keep up with the demand. An estimated 420,000 
students are on the waiting list to be admitted to charter schools. 
It's heartbreaking to know that the trajectory of these children's 
lives will be, in no small part, determined by a lottery. We can and 
must do better.
  H.R. 2218 will help more students gain access to a quality education 
by facilitating the development of high performing charter schools. It 
reauthorizes the charter school program, which provides start-up grants 
to help charter schools open the doors, buy classroom materials, and 
teach new students. The bill also encourages States to support the 
development and expansion of charter schools, while ensuring an 
emphasis on quality and innovation.
  The best educational system is one in which parents, teachers, and 
local school boards collaborate to set the agenda, not Washington, DC. 
This bill puts more power in the hands of those who know our children 
best and their needs best.
  Charter schools are not a silver bullet, but they offer a way out for 
students who otherwise would be trapped in a failing school. Every 
charter school that is supported through this program is one more 
choice a parent will have to ensure their children's future success.
  I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 2218, the 
Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act.
  During my first visit to a charter school years ago, when charter 
schools were first on the horizon, I was so impressed. I was impressed 
with the small class sizes. I was impressed with the level of parental 
involvement and the individualized learning programs. In fact, when I 
left the school, I was actually teary; I mean, I was overcome because I 
wanted every single child in the United States of America to have this 
same rich educational experience.
  All charter schools aren't quite that successful and all public 
schools aren't failing, but charter schools were created to develop 
best practices and innovative learning methods, and, if they were 
successful, those methods could be brought back and used in all public 
schools. While some charter schools have found new ways to promote 
academic achievement, other public schools have yet to benefit from 
this investment.
  This bill will return charter schools to their original mission by 
helping improve the public school system and ensuring that charters no 
longer operate in isolation without strict accountability.
  For many years, I've been concerned that charter schools, using 
taxpayer dollars, would function at the expense of public schools 
instead of complementing them. For instance, without reform, the most 
talented and motivated students could simply go to the charter schools, 
while public schools would be left with the most challenging 
situations, especially students with disabilities, English language 
learners, and students who come from broken homes and are having a hard 
time just keeping up in general. And that was totally contrary to the 
intent of the charter schools movement; it would weaken, rather than 
strengthen, our public school system.
  So to address this problem, this bill stood up and, in a very 
bipartisan way, our committee put together a bill that we have here on 
the House floor that requires charter schools to adopt practices that 
promote inclusion, that allow for increased enrollment of students with 
disabilities and limited English skills, and provides an information 
sharing system regarding systems programs.
  There are many other necessary reforms included in H.R. 2218, and 
they'll all ensure charter schools fill their original purpose. With 
these reforms, charter schools will play the constructive role in our 
education system that they were designed to play.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan, the chair of the Workforce Protection 
Subcommittee, Mr. Walberg.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chair and committee leadership for bringing 
this

[[Page 13129]]

bill forward, H.R. 2218, for which I urge my colleagues' support.
  In the Northwest Ordinance, the same language in that ordinance, as 
well as what was then put into many of our State constitutions, says 
this: ``Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good 
governments and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of 
education, shall forever be encouraged.''
  I believe this bill, H.R. 2218, does just that. It's a simple bill. 
It promotes a charter school program that accomplishes three goals. 
Those being, one, to provide parents greater options for their 
children's education; two, consolidating education programs and 
reducing the authorization level; and, three, supporting the 
development of high-quality charter schools. That's what we're about in 
education. That's what we ought to be concerned with.
  This bill accomplishes our goal of modernizing and streamlining the 
program by consolidating the current programs to one program and one 
authorization line. The result in savings still affords the taxpayer, 
the parent, and the educator with even more opportunity for growth of 
proven charter school models and new innovative charter schools.
  The bill ensures that charter schools and charter school authorizers 
reach out to parents to serve students who can benefit from these 
schools. The legislation supports quality initiatives in the 
authorizing world without putting any new mandates on the schools.
  The legislation has broad support, including a community that 
includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, National 
Alliance of Public Charter Schools, Texas Charter School Association, 
Chiefs for Change, the National Association of State Directors of 
Special Education, just to name a few.
  Charter schools were created in Michigan, my State, 15 years ago. And 
since that time nothing but proven educational success has taken place, 
with children in tough school districts before now receiving education 
that is promoting success for them and their future prosperity in an 
education opportunity that expands in the real-world experience.
  For that reason and many others, I urge the support of H.R. 2218 as a 
proposal that does exactly what our Northwest Ordinance says. It 
encourages schools and the means of education for quality, students, 
and future people that will work in our system.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  In the earliest days of our Republic, our prosperity came from our 
abundant natural resources. Then in later days, our prosperity came 
from the fact that we were bordered by two vast oceans to our east and 
west which gave us an isolated domestic market.
  In the days after the Second World War, our prosperity was grounded 
in the fact that we were the sole remaining industrial power untouched 
by the Second World War, relatively speaking.
  All of those advantages relatively speaking are gone; and the way 
we're going to be prosperous today and in the future is by having the 
best educated, best motivated workforce anywhere in the world. We're 
not going to have that best educated and best motivated workforce 
without a high-quality education for every child in America.
  I see this bill as a step in that direction by enriching and making 
more accountable the charter school movement in our country.
  Make no mistake about it: all charter schools are not perfect. Many 
charter schools, frankly, are very troubled. But the charter school 
movement has been a positive step forward for our country. This bill 
adds accountability to that movement and adds new resources that I 
think are welcome.
  I would echo the words of Ranking Member Miller and note that 90 
percent of children in America's schools are in public schools. And the 
principal legislative action we have on those public schools is the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I know that the chairman of the 
committee has worked very diligently to prepare the committee for the 
work we could do on that. And I'm hopeful that we can have the same 
kind of cooperative effort for the ESEA reauthorization as we have for 
this charter school bill.
  There is much more to do, but today is a good first step. I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. 
Bucshon.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Chairman Kline.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me thank Representative Hunter, Chairman 
Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and others for their hard work and 
leadership on this legislation.
  I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents 
through Quality Charter Schools Act. Where American education was once 
a world leader, over the past few decades we are losing our advantage. 
The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act will 
facilitate the development and replication of high-performing charter 
schools that will help America regain its stature as a leader in 
educating its citizens.
  Charter schools are created through a contract with local education 
providers that allow flexibility and innovation in educating our 
children while maintaining the same requirements and accountability of 
traditional public schools. Charter schools are able to bring 
innovation and special programming into the curriculum that is uniquely 
tailored to the needs of their specific student population. This not 
only allows choice for parents whose children may be better suited for 
this kind of flexibility, but also can inspire progress in traditional 
schools by raising the bar and creating greater transparency.
  By increasing funding opportunities for the replication of successful 
charter schools and facilities assistance, H.R. 2218 encourages States 
to invest in charter schools.
  Further, H.R. 2218 supports the evaluation of the impact of charter 
schools on their students, faculty, parents, and communities to ensure 
that high-quality education is available for every child and parents 
can choose the correct venue for their child's education.
  In my district in Evansville, Indiana, Signature School was ranked 
the top high school in the Midwest and the number three charter school 
in the country by The Washington Post. These rankings were based on 
data that indicate how well a school prepares its students for college 
based on Advanced Placement tests or International Baccalaureate 
completions. Signature School is an example of a high-performing 
charter school that this legislation aims to replicate.
  Replicating schools like Signature School that have a proven history 
for effectively preparing our children for college is not only in the 
best interest of students and parents but also in the best interest of 
the economy. By increasing the number of students that are college 
ready, we build a more educated generation, more prepared to take on 
the complex jobs in health care, engineering, science and technology 
and others that future industries will demand.
  With an unemployment rate near 9 percent, educating our students is 
critical. By increasing our students' access to high-quality charter 
schools, H.R. 2218 will prepare our children for the high-tech jobs of 
the future. This is essential if we are to maintain our competitiveness 
in a global economy.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the intellectual architect of all of this.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman 
from Minnesota.
  There is a lot of good in public education today. When we look across 
our country, just as we see examples of what doesn't work--drop-out 
factory schools where kids are falling further and further behind each 
year, schools that are unsafe learning environments for their kids--
just as we have that, we also have examples of what works, what works 
with our most at-risk populations in this country showing that every 
student in this country can learn and can achieve, given the right 
opportunity and the right school environment.

[[Page 13130]]

  Now, charter schools aren't the silver bullet or the solution, but 
they are a tool in the arsenal of school districts in the States to 
address the learning needs of all students.
  Nationally, there's over 5,000 charter schools representing just over 
5 percent of all public schools in the country. Many of those charter 
schools couldn't have gotten off the ground without the Federal start-
up grant that this bill reauthorizes. Importantly, again because we 
have examples that this works, this bill, for the first times, allows 
States to use the money to expand and replicate learning models that 
work.
  I point to one in Colorado, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy. Ninety-
three percent free and reduced lunch, 86 percent English language 
learners, and yet they scored far above the State average in the past 3 
years, 95 to 100 percent proficient in math and about 20 percent higher 
than the State average score--the State average score that includes 
wealthy suburban districts as well.

                              {time}  1440

  Yes, these students can learn, and schools like Ricardo Flores Magon 
Academy will now under this new authorization have access to expansion 
and replication money.
  So, when models work--whether that's a model like KIPP nationally, 
which has successfully served some of our most at-risk communities, or 
whether it's grassroots efforts across our country--they will be able 
to access resources to serve more students and grow or to open up 
additional branches of the same school. National, State, and local 
research consistently shows that, yes, not all charter schools work. 
Some underperform other public schools. Some perform at the same level, 
and some do better.
  What we do with this bill is we provide for best practices 
nationally. We've learned a lot in the last 10 years with regard to 
charter schools. We now have some best practices in this bill, like 
removing caps on the number of charter schools in districts. Through 
the manager's amendment, we ensure that charter schools can participate 
in food services as well as in transportation services in districts. I 
want to point out the importance of the transportation because, to make 
choice meaningful, to add the emphasis to choice, you have to have 
transportation options to get the most at-risk kids to school; 
otherwise choice is simply an empty promise.
  By focusing Federal investments, as H.R. 2218 does, it ensures that 
we maximize the impact of our limited Federal resources on improving 
student achievement and reducing the learning gap across the country. 
To succeed as a Nation, we need to do a better job with our human 
capital in preparing the next generation of Americans for the next 
generation of jobs, and this bill will be an important tool in that 
arsenal.
  I strongly support this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has remaining 16 minutes. The 
gentleman from California has remaining 15 minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. It is my understanding that the gentleman from California 
has several more speakers.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. They're here in spirit. They're not 
here in person, unfortunately.
  Mr. KLINE. I am prepared to reserve and let you call on speakers.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. I have one or 
two other speakers. We've put out a call to them, but they've not 
responded. I'll see if we can maybe fit them in on the manager's 
amendment if they want to speak because I'll be very brief on the 
manager's amendment on this side.
  So let me just close by again thanking everyone on the committee for 
their support. I certainly want to thank the staff on both sides of the 
aisle but particularly the staff on this side of the aisle, and the 
members of our committee, for helping me with this legislation. I want 
to recognize Jamie Fasteau, Ruth Friedman, Kara Marchione, Laura 
Schifter, Daniel Brown, Megan O'Reilly, and Adam Schaefer for all of 
their contributions to this successful bipartisan effort.
  Finally, I would just like to say, as many speakers have said, all 
charter schools aren't perfect; this isn't a silver bullet. What we 
hope to be able to do is to really continue to grow the entrepreneurial 
spirit of young people across the board looking at our education 
system, thinking how it can be done better, what are the best 
practices, what are the indicators of successful schools, of successful 
learning environments, of successful teaching environments for 
teachers, for students, and focusing on the academic achievement and 
the benefits to the students. And then to be able to share those models 
across the charter school spectrum, across the traditional public 
school spectrum so that all of us can learn and benefit from that, and 
most importantly so we can create those environments where America's 
children will have the opportunity to have access to a first-class 
education that will serve them the rest of their lives.
  I believe that that effort is facilitated by the charter school 
movement. I believe that this legislation is a substantial improvement 
on the original authorization for charter schools to participate in 
this area, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.
  With that, I've danced as long as I can. I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to those of Ranking Member 
Miller's to the staffs on both sides, to the members of the committee 
on both sides, and to our colleagues not on the committee, like Mr. 
Polis, for their input and help on this legislation.
  All of us were elected to Congress with the promise to enact laws 
that will make this country a better place for our children and our 
grandchildren. This starts with ensuring that every child has access to 
a quality education.
  For many students and their parents, charter schools are a beacon of 
hope and, in some cases, the only beacon of hope. They symbolize 
opportunity, choice, and educational excellence, and it is past time to 
ensure more families and communities across the United States have 
access to these groundbreaking institutions.
  By approving the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools 
Act today, we can help put more students on the path to a successful 
future. I urge my colleagues to put differences aside and to join 
together in supporting this legislation for the sake of those students 
trapped in underperforming schools across America.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
2218, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act. 
Although this bill includes some modest improvements to charter school 
regulation over current laws, it still falls short of ensuring that 
charter schools are held to high standards for educational quality, 
accountability and accessibility for all students.
  Charter school education currently lies at the center of a growing 
movement to challenge traditional notions of what public education 
means in America. Although it is important for students to have choice 
within the educational model, we cannot solely rely on charter schools 
and private for-profit companies to solve all of our educational 
challenges within our public school system. There is considerable 
research which documents mixed reviews of success among charter 
schools. In a national study conducted by Stanford University economist 
Margaret Raymond, she found that only 17 percent of charter schools 
were superior to the local public schools, 37 percent of charter 
schools received worse results than comparable neighborhood schools and 
46 percent did about the same.
  With more than 1.5 million students enrolled in charter schools that 
vary widely in quality, it is critical that we, as a nation, have 
protections in place that will ensure these students achieve 
educational success and this bill falls short of ensuring just that. We 
must enhance the focus on charter schools' and authorizers' 
accountability. We must enhance the ever so important role of parents 
and the community's input in the authorizing process. We must to ensure 
that adequate educational resources play a critical role in improving 
achievement for all students. With this bill's lack of transparency and 
accountability requirements, guarantee to adequate resources and 
parental

[[Page 13131]]

and community involvement we will only further exacerbate current 
resource and opportunity gaps in the American educational system.
  I appreciate my colleague Rep. George Miller's commitment to equality 
education in American and his hard work on this bill but I think is 
important for us to take a closer look at this bill's provisions just 
to ensure that every student receives a quality education that is 
transparent, holds its educators accountable and is most importantly 
equal.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Empowering 
Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act, H.R. 2218, which is a 
bipartisan bill to reform and strengthen the charter school program.
  I recently gave the graduation speech at the Princeton Charter 
School, a high quality charter that opened its doors more than a decade 
ago and was recognized as a blue ribbon school by the U.S. Department 
of Education in 2004. And I was pleased to see the success there. But I 
urged them to make sure they are well-integrated in the public school 
system in their community.
  We need to reinvigorate America's education system and give each and 
every child the opportunity to learn and thrive. I am an advocate of 
alternative forms of education including charter schools. I think these 
institutions can be viable and beneficial in promoting academic 
achievement and diversity.
  It is important to remember that charter schools are part of the 
public school system, and we must hold them to the same standards of 
broad educational access and same standards of accountability--which 
means we have to be willing to shut down charter schools that fail to 
meet expectations. Otherwise, charter schools are not true to their 
reason for being: to inject innovation and experimentation into the 
public school system. I am pleased that this bill increases 
accountability for charter schools and ensures states use a schools 
performance as a primary factor for charter renewal.
  I have long believed that charter school innovations and best 
practices must be shared with other school districts--urban, rural, and 
suburban school districts alike. This requires work on both sides: 
outreach by the charter schools and acceptance by the traditional 
public school system to learn what there is to be learned. I worked 
with Rep. Polis to include such language in his ALL-STAR Act.
  That is why I am pleased that the bipartisan legislation before us 
today includes provisions to require charter schools to disseminate 
best practices with other public schools.
  This legislation also ensures that States work with charter school 
authorizers to put in place the quality controls necessary for holding 
charter schools accountable, including annual performance data and 
financial audits. These provisions will lead to more replication of 
high-quality charter schools nationwide.
  I share the concerns of some that more can be done to improve the 
accountability, equity and transparency of charter school, and as we 
continue to move this bill through the process, I hope additional 
improvements can be made. But we should all recognize that this bill 
makes a great deal of progress from the existing program and deserves 
our support today.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I voted in favor of House Resolution 2218, 
the Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act. While I 
support most of the legislation, I have a few concerns which I would 
like to highlight.
  I welcome the additional accountability requirements and the 
increased access measures incorporated into this legislation, as well 
as the specific encouragement for public charter schools and 
traditional public schools to share best practices. However, I am 
worried about the authority given to the Secretary to dispense charter 
planning grant money. We have often seen this discretionary authority 
used to coerce school districts or states into adopting policies that 
do not fit within the state's education framework.
  While I appreciate the bipartisan nature of this legislation, and the 
important advances it makes for accountability and access issues, I 
hope that the discretionary authority given to the Secretary is used 
judiciously.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2218, the 
Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act.
  While there is no silver bullet to resolve all the problems facing 
our nation's education system, this bill represents a critical step 
toward better preparing our children to meet the challenges of a 21st 
century economy. It is also the first major element of reform to be 
acted on this year by either chamber of Congress.
  We all want our kids to be able to attend a great school. It's like 
my father told me, ``If you have a good education, you can accomplish 
anything.''
  That's why transparent and accountable charter schools are so 
important. They ensure greater access among our children to the high-
quality education they deserve. Moreover, charter schools often operate 
in flexible and innovative ways that promote student success.
  Unfortunately, demand for these opportunities continues to outpace 
supply. Over 400,000 U.S. students remain on waiting lists for 
enrollment in charter schools.
  That's why I support H.R. 2218, which contains provisions that will 
remove barriers to the establishment of charter schools, improve 
academic performance, and reduce the number of students waiting for 
admission. This legislation also establishes commonsense quality 
controls that will protect students and taxpayers alike. The bill 
requires accurate assessments of schools though independent financial 
audits, and establishes clear academic and performance standards.
  Following passage in the House, this bill will be sent to the Senate, 
where I hope it receives the consideration it deserves. And, should it 
be signed into law, I will continue to work with my colleagues to 
monitor its impact and ensure that our nation's charter school system 
continues to reflect the transparency and accountability required by 
this legislation.
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chair, as the House of Representatives 
continues to discuss how we can improve upon our nation's system of 
education, I would like to address my colleagues and constituents on 
the importance of collaboration on this issue. Our nation's young 
people play a vital role in the future of our country, and we must 
focus on the best interests of our children.
  Over 20,000 students in my state of Indiana attend public charter 
schools. Parents seeking fresh opportunities for their children are 
finding successful charter school programs within some communities that 
educate our children in new and innovative ways. Whereas misguided 
programs, such as private school vouchers, take money away from 
improving our schools, investing in well-managed charter schools is one 
way to improve upon existing public school systems. Through these 
efforts, public school educators are able to offer experiential 
learning programs that take creative approaches to teaching.
  H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools 
Act, has come to a vote at a critical time in our nation's history. 
America is at a crossroads with record unemployment, staggering 
deficits and widespread public discontent. Members of Congress must 
make the tough decisions that will make preparing all American children 
for the global economy a priority.
  Although I realize the bill fails to address the needs to reform all 
of our schools, I decided to vote in support of Empowering Parents 
through Quality Charter Schools Act. I support the Charter Schools 
Program and believe we must continue to invest in school infrastructure 
and innovative teaching styles. I believe this legislation takes a 
positive step toward adding civil rights protections for students with 
disabilities and ensuring higher levels of overall quality within 
public charter schools.
  As the husband of a public school principal, I recognize the need to 
ensure that America's children are all equally prepared for the future. 
I pledge to continue working with all of my colleagues to invest in 
across-the-board improvements in all of our public schools and create 
incentives that include traditional public schools, students, parents 
and educators.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2218

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Empowering Parents through 
     Quality Charter Schools Act''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this 
     Act a section or other provision is amended or repealed, such 
     amendment or repeal shall be considered to be made to that 
     section or other provision of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       Section 5201 (20 U.S.C. 7221) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 5201. PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this subpart to--
       ``(1) provide financial assistance for the planning, 
     program design, and initial implementation of charter 
     schools;

[[Page 13132]]

       ``(2) expand the number of high-quality charter schools 
     available to students across the Nation;
       ``(3) evaluate the impact of such schools on student 
     achievement, families, and communities, and share best 
     practices between charter schools and other public schools;
       ``(4) encourage States to provide support to charter 
     schools for facilities financing in an amount more nearly 
     commensurate to the amount the States have typically provided 
     for traditional public schools;
       ``(5) improve student services to increase opportunities 
     for students with disabilities, English language learners, 
     and other traditionally underserved students to attend 
     charter schools and meet challenging State academic 
     achievement standards; and
       ``(6) support efforts to strengthen the charter school 
     authorizing process to improve performance management, 
     including transparency, monitoring, and evaluation of such 
     schools.''.

     SEC. 4. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       Section 5202 (20 U.S.C. 7221a) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 5202. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--This subpart authorizes the Secretary to 
     carry out a charter school program that supports charter 
     schools that serve elementary school and secondary school 
     students by--
       ``(1) supporting the startup, replication, and expansion of 
     charter schools;
       ``(2) assisting charter schools in accessing credit to 
     acquire and renovate facilities for school use; and
       ``(3) carrying out national activities to support--
       ``(A) charter school development;
       ``(B) the dissemination of best practices of charter 
     schools for all schools; and
       ``(C) the evaluation of the impact of the program on 
     schools participating in the program.
       ``(b) Funding Allotment.--From the amount made available 
     under section 5211 for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) reserve 15 percent to support charter school 
     facilities assistance under section 5204;
       ``(2) reserve not more than 5 percent to carry out national 
     activities under section 5205; and
       ``(3) use the remaining amount after the Secretary reserves 
     funds under paragraphs (1) and (2) to carry out section 5203.
       ``(c) Prior Grants and Subgrants.--The recipient of a grant 
     or subgrant under this subpart, as such subpart was in effect 
     on the day before the date of enactment of the Empowering 
     Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act, shall continue 
     to receive funds in accordance with the terms and conditions 
     of such grant or subgrant.''.

     SEC. 5. GRANTS TO SUPPORT HIGH-QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       Section 5203 (20 U.S.C. 7221b) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 5203. GRANTS TO SUPPORT HIGH-QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) In General.--From the amount reserved under section 
     5202(b)(3), the Secretary shall award grants to State 
     entities having applications approved pursuant to subsection 
     (f) to enable such entities to--
       ``(1) award subgrants to eligible applicants for--
       ``(A) opening new charter schools;
       ``(B) opening replicable, high-quality charter school 
     models; or
       ``(C) expanding high-quality charter schools; and
       ``(2) provide technical assistance to eligible applicants 
     and authorized public chartering agencies in carrying out the 
     activities described in paragraph (1) and work with 
     authorized public chartering agencies in the State to improve 
     authorizing quality.
       ``(b) State Uses of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State entity receiving a grant under 
     this section shall--
       ``(A) use 90 percent of the grant funds to award subgrants 
     to eligible applicants, in accordance with the quality 
     charter school program described in the entity's application 
     approved pursuant to subsection (f), for the purposes 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of subsection 
     (a)(1); and
       ``(B) reserve 10 percent of such funds to carry out the 
     activities described in subsection (a)(2), of which not more 
     than 30 percent may be used for administrative costs which 
     may include technical assistance.
       ``(2) Contracts and grants.--A State entity may use a grant 
     received under this section to carry out the activities 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) 
     directly or through grants, contracts, or cooperative 
     agreements.
       ``(c) Program Periods; Peer Review; Diversity of 
     Projects.--
       ``(1) Program periods.--
       ``(A) Grants.--A grant awarded by the Secretary to a State 
     entity under this section shall be for a period of not more 
     than 5 years.
       ``(B) Subgrants.--A subgrant awarded by a State entity 
     under this section shall be for a period of not more than 5 
     years, of which an eligible applicant may use not more than 
     18 months for planning and program design.
       ``(2) Peer review.--The Secretary, and each State entity 
     receiving a grant under this section, shall use a peer review 
     process to review applications for assistance under this 
     section.
       ``(3) Diversity of projects.--Each State entity receiving a 
     grant under this section shall award subgrants under this 
     section in a manner that, to the extent possible, ensures 
     that such subgrants--
       ``(A) are distributed throughout different areas, including 
     urban, suburban, and rural areas; and
       ``(B) will assist charter schools representing a variety of 
     educational approaches.
       ``(d) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Grants.--A State entity may not receive more than 1 
     grant under this section for a 5-year period.
       ``(2) Subgrants.--An eligible applicant may not receive 
     more than 1 subgrant under this section per charter school 
     for a 5-year period.
       ``(e) Applications.--A State entity desiring to receive a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may require. The application shall include the following:
       ``(1) Description of program.--A description of the 
     entity's objectives in running a quality charter school 
     program under this section and how the objectives of the 
     program will be carried out, including a description--
       ``(A) of how the entity--
       ``(i) will support both new charter school startup and the 
     expansion and replication of high-quality charter school 
     models;
       ``(ii) will inform eligible charter schools, developers, 
     and authorized public chartering agencies of the availability 
     of funds under the program;
       ``(iii) will work with eligible applicants to ensure that 
     the applicants access all Federal funds that they are 
     eligible to receive, and help the charter schools supported 
     by the applicants and the students attending the charter 
     schools--

       ``(I) participate in the Federal programs in which the 
     schools and students are eligible to participate; and
       ``(II) receive the commensurate share of Federal funds the 
     schools and students are eligible to receive under such 
     programs;

       ``(iv) in the case in which the entity is not a State 
     educational agency--

       ``(I) will work with the State educational agency and the 
     charter schools in the State to maximize charter school 
     participation in Federal and State programs for charter 
     schools; and
       ``(II) will work with the State educational agency to 
     adequately operate the entity's program under this section, 
     where applicable;

       ``(v) will ensure eligible applicants that receive a 
     subgrant under the entity's program are prepared to continue 
     to operate the charter schools receiving the subgrant funds 
     once the funds have expired;
       ``(vi) will support charter schools in local educational 
     agencies with large numbers of schools that must comply with 
     the requirements of section 1116(b);
       ``(vii) will work with charter schools to promote inclusion 
     of all students and support all students once they are 
     enrolled to promote retention;
       ``(viii) will work with charter schools on recruitment 
     practices, including efforts to engage groups that may 
     otherwise have limited opportunities to participate in 
     charter schools;
       ``(ix) will share best and promising practices between 
     charter schools and other public schools;
       ``(x) will ensure the charter schools they support can meet 
     the educational needs of their students, including students 
     with disabilities and English language learners; and
       ``(xi) will support efforts to increase quality 
     initiatives, including meeting the quality authorizing 
     elements described in paragraph (2)(E);
       ``(B) of the extent to which the entity--
       ``(i) is able to meet and carry out the priorities listed 
     in subsection (f)(2); and
       ``(ii) is working to develop or strengthen a cohesive 
     statewide system to support the opening of new charter 
     schools and replicable, high-quality charter school models, 
     and expanding high-quality charter schools;
       ``(C) how the entity will carry out the subgrant 
     competition, including--
       ``(i) a description of the application each eligible 
     applicant desiring to receive a subgrant will submit, 
     including--

       ``(I) a description of the roles and responsibilities of 
     eligible applicants, partner organizations, and management 
     organizations, including the administrative and contractual 
     roles and responsibilities; and
       ``(II) a description of the quality controls agreed to 
     between the eligible applicant and the authorized public 
     chartering agency involved, such as a contract or performance 
     agreement, and how a school's performance on the State's 
     academic accountability system will be a primary factor for 
     renewal; and

       ``(ii) a description of how the entity will review 
     applications; and
       ``(D) in the case of an entity that partners with an 
     outside organization to carry out the entity's quality 
     charter school program, in whole or in part, of the roles and 
     responsibilities of this partner.
       ``(2) Assurances.--Assurances, including a description of 
     how the assurances will be met, that--
       ``(A) each charter school receiving funds under the 
     entity's program will have a high degree of autonomy over 
     budget and operations;
       ``(B) the entity will support charter schools in meeting 
     the educational needs of their students as described in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(x);
       ``(C) the entity will ensure that the authorized public 
     chartering agency of any charter school that receives funds 
     under the entity's program--
       ``(i) ensures that the charter school is meeting the 
     obligations under this Act, part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 
     and

[[Page 13133]]

       ``(ii) adequately monitors and helps the schools in 
     recruiting, enrolling, and meeting the needs of all students, 
     including students with disabilities and English language 
     learners;
       ``(D) the entity will provide adequate technical assistance 
     to eligible applicants to--
       ``(i) meet the objectives described in clauses (vii) and 
     (viii) of paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2)(B); and
       ``(ii) enroll traditionally underserved students, including 
     students with disabilities and English language learners, to 
     promote an inclusive education environment;
       ``(E) the entity will promote quality authorizing, such as 
     through providing technical assistance, to support all 
     authorized public chartering agencies in the State to improve 
     the monitoring of their charter schools, including by--
       ``(i) using annual performance data, which may include 
     graduation rates and student growth data, as appropriate, to 
     measure the progress of their schools toward becoming high-
     quality charter schools; and
       ``(ii) reviewing the schools' independent, annual audits of 
     financial statements conducted in accordance with generally 
     accepted accounting principles, and ensuring any such audits 
     are publically reported; and
       ``(F) the entity will work to ensure that charter schools 
     are included with the traditional public school system in 
     decision-making about the public school system in the State.
       ``(3) Requests for waivers.--A request and justification 
     for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions 
     that the entity believes are necessary for the successful 
     operation of the charter schools that will receive funds 
     under the entity's program under this section, and a 
     description of any State or local rules, generally applicable 
     to public schools, that will be waived, or otherwise not 
     apply to such schools.
       ``(f) Selection Criteria; Priority.--
       ``(1) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     to State entities under this section on the basis of the 
     quality of the applications submitted under subsection (e), 
     after taking into consideration--
       ``(A) the degree of flexibility afforded by the State's 
     public charter school law and how the entity will work to 
     maximize the flexibility provided to charter schools under 
     the law;
       ``(B) the ambitiousness of the entity's objectives for the 
     quality charter school program carried out under this 
     section;
       ``(C) the quality of the strategy for assessing achievement 
     of those objectives;
       ``(D) the likelihood that the eligible applicants receiving 
     subgrants under the program will meet those objectives and 
     improve educational results for students;
       ``(E) the proposed number of new charter schools to be 
     opened, and the number of high-quality charter schools to be 
     replicated or expanded under the program;
       ``(F) the entity's plan to--
       ``(i) adequately monitor the eligible applicants receiving 
     subgrants under the entity's program; and
       ``(ii) work with the authorized public chartering agencies 
     involved to avoid duplication of work for the charter schools 
     and authorized public chartering agencies;
       ``(G) the entity's plan to provide adequate technical 
     assistance, as described in the entity's application under 
     subsection (e), for the eligible applicants receiving 
     subgrants under the entity's program under this section; and
       ``(H) the entity's plan to support quality authorizing 
     efforts in the State, consistent with the objectives 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to State entities to the extent 
     that they meet the following criteria:
       ``(A) In the case in which a State entity is located in a 
     State that allows an entity other than the State educational 
     agency to be an authorized public chartering agency or a 
     State in which only a local educational agency may be an 
     authorized public chartering agency, the State has an appeals 
     process for the denial of an application for a charter 
     school.
       ``(B) The State entity is located in a State that does not 
     impose any limitation on the number or percentage of charter 
     schools that may exist or the number or percentage of 
     students that may attend charter schools in the State.
       ``(C) The State entity is located in a State that ensures 
     equitable financing, as compared to traditional public 
     schools, for charter schools and students in a prompt manner.
       ``(D) The State entity supports full-, 
     blended-, or hybrid-online charter school models.
       ``(E) The State entity is located in a State that uses 
     charter schools and best practices from charter schools to 
     help improve struggling schools and local educational 
     agencies.
       ``(F) The State entity partners with an organization that 
     has a demonstrated record of success in developing management 
     organizations to support the development of charter schools 
     in the State.
       ``(G) The State entity demonstrates quality policies and 
     practices to support and monitor charter schools through 
     factors, including--
       ``(i) the proportion of high-quality charter schools in the 
     State; and
       ``(ii) the proportion of charter schools enrolling, at a 
     rate similar to traditional public schools, traditionally 
     underserved students, including students with disabilities 
     and English language learners.
       ``(g) Local Uses of Funds.--An eligible applicant receiving 
     a subgrant under this section shall use such funds to open 
     new charter schools or replicable, high-quality charter 
     school models, or expand existing high-quality charter 
     schools.
       ``(h) Reporting Requirements.--Each State entity receiving 
     a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary, at 
     the end of the third year of the 5-year grant period and at 
     the end of such grant period, a report on--
       ``(1) the number of students served and, if applicable, how 
     many new students were served during each year of the grant 
     period;
       ``(2) the number of subgrants awarded under this section to 
     carry out each of the following--
       ``(A) the opening of new charter schools;
       ``(B) the opening of replicable, high-quality charter 
     school models; and
       ``(C) the expansion of high-quality charter schools;
       ``(3) the progress the entity made toward meeting the 
     priorities described in subsection (f)(2), as applicable;
       ``(4) how the entity met the objectives of the quality 
     charter school program described in the entity's application 
     under subsection (e);
       ``(5) how the entity complied with, and ensured that 
     eligible applicants complied with, the assurances described 
     in the entity's application; and
       ``(6) how the entity worked with authorized public 
     chartering agencies, including how the agencies worked with 
     the management company or leadership of the schools in which 
     the subgrants were awarded.
       ``(i) State Entity Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `State entity' means--
       ``(1) a State educational agency;
       ``(2) a State charter school board; or
       ``(3) a Governor of a State.''.

     SEC. 6. FACILITIES FINANCING ASSISTANCE.

       Section 5204 (20 U.S.C. 7221c) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 5204. FACILITIES FINANCING ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Grants to Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amount reserved under section 
     5202(b)(1), the Secretary shall award not less than 3 grants 
     to eligible entities that have applications approved under 
     subsection (d) to demonstrate innovative methods of assisting 
     charter schools to address the cost of acquiring, 
     constructing, and renovating facilities by enhancing the 
     availability of loans or bond financing.
       ``(2) Eligible entity defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a public entity, such as a State or local 
     governmental entity;
       ``(B) a private nonprofit entity; or
       ``(C) a consortium of entities described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).
       ``(b) Grantee Selection.--
       ``(1) Evaluation of application.--The Secretary shall 
     evaluate each application submitted under subsection (d), and 
     shall determine whether the application is sufficient to 
     merit approval.
       ``(2) Distribution of grants.--The Secretary shall award at 
     least one grant to an eligible entity described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), at least one grant to an eligible entity described 
     in subsection (a)(2)(B), and at least one grant to an 
     eligible entity described in subsection (a)(2)(C), if 
     applications are submitted that permit the Secretary to do so 
     without approving an application that is not of sufficient 
     quality to merit approval.
       ``(c) Grant Characteristics.--Grants under subsection (a) 
     shall be of a sufficient size, scope, and quality so as to 
     ensure an effective demonstration of an innovative means of 
     enhancing credit for the financing of charter school 
     acquisition, construction, or renovation.
       ``(d) Applications.--
       ``(1) In general.--To receive a grant under subsection (a), 
     an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application in such form as the Secretary may reasonably 
     require.
       ``(2) Contents.--An application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) a statement identifying the activities proposed to be 
     undertaken with funds received under subsection (a), 
     including how the eligible entity will determine which 
     charter schools will receive assistance, and how much and 
     what types of assistance charter schools will receive;
       ``(B) a description of the involvement of charter schools 
     in the application's development and the design of the 
     proposed activities;
       ``(C) a description of the eligible entity's expertise in 
     capital market financing;
       ``(D) a description of how the proposed activities will 
     leverage the maximum amount of private-sector financing 
     capital relative to the amount of government funding used and 
     otherwise enhance credit available to charter schools, 
     including how the entity will offer a combination of rates 
     and terms more favorable than the rates and terms that a 
     charter school could receive without assistance from the 
     entity under this section;
       ``(E) a description of how the eligible entity possesses 
     sufficient expertise in education to evaluate the likelihood 
     of success of a charter school program for which facilities 
     financing is sought; and
       ``(F) in the case of an application submitted by a State 
     governmental entity, a description of the actions that the 
     entity has taken, or will take, to ensure that charter 
     schools within the State receive the funding the charter 
     schools need to have adequate facilities.
       ``(e) Charter School Objectives.--An eligible entity 
     receiving a grant under this section shall use the funds 
     deposited in the reserve account established under subsection 
     (f) to assist one or more charter schools to access private 
     sector capital to accomplish one or both of the following 
     objectives:

[[Page 13134]]

       ``(1) The acquisition (by purchase, lease, donation, or 
     otherwise) of an interest (including an interest held by a 
     third party for the benefit of a charter school) in improved 
     or unimproved real property that is necessary to commence or 
     continue the operation of a charter school.
       ``(2) The construction of new facilities, including 
     predevelopment costs, or the renovation, repair, or 
     alteration of existing facilities, necessary to commence or 
     continue the operation of a charter school.
       ``(f) Reserve Account.--
       ``(1) Use of funds.--To assist charter schools to 
     accomplish the objectives described in subsection (e), an 
     eligible entity receiving a grant under subsection (a) shall, 
     in accordance with State and local law, directly or 
     indirectly, alone or in collaboration with others, deposit 
     the funds received under subsection (a) (other than funds 
     used for administrative costs in accordance with subsection 
     (g)) in a reserve account established and maintained by the 
     eligible entity for this purpose. Amounts deposited in such 
     account shall be used by the eligible entity for one or more 
     of the following purposes:
       ``(A) Guaranteeing, insuring, and reinsuring bonds, notes, 
     evidences of debt, loans, and interests therein, the proceeds 
     of which are used for an objective described in subsection 
     (e).
       ``(B) Guaranteeing and insuring leases of personal and real 
     property for an objective described in subsection (e).
       ``(C) Facilitating financing by identifying potential 
     lending sources, encouraging private lending, and other 
     similar activities that directly promote lending to, or for 
     the benefit of, charter schools.
       ``(D) Facilitating the issuance of bonds by charter 
     schools, or by other public entities for the benefit of 
     charter schools, by providing technical, administrative, and 
     other appropriate assistance (including the recruitment of 
     bond counsel, underwriters, and potential investors and the 
     consolidation of multiple charter school projects within a 
     single bond issue).
       ``(2) Investment.--Funds received under this section and 
     deposited in the reserve account established under paragraph 
     (1) shall be invested in obligations issued or guaranteed by 
     the United States or a State, or in other similarly low-risk 
     securities.
       ``(3) Reinvestment of earnings.--Any earnings on funds 
     received under subsection (a) shall be deposited in the 
     reserve account established under paragraph (1) and used in 
     accordance with such subsection.
       ``(g) Limitation on Administrative Costs.--An eligible 
     entity may use not more than 2.5 percent of the funds 
     received under subsection (a) for the administrative costs of 
     carrying out its responsibilities under this section 
     (excluding subsection (k)).
       ``(h) Audits and Reports.--
       ``(1) Financial record maintenance and audit.--The 
     financial records of each eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under subsection (a) shall be maintained in accordance with 
     generally accepted accounting principles and shall be subject 
     to an annual audit by an independent public accountant.
       ``(2) Reports.--
       ``(A) Grantee annual reports.--Each eligible entity 
     receiving a grant under subsection (a) annually shall submit 
     to the Secretary a report of its operations and activities 
     under this section.
       ``(B) Contents.--Each annual report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include--
       ``(i) a copy of the most recent financial statements, and 
     any accompanying opinion on such statements, prepared by the 
     independent public accountant reviewing the financial records 
     of the eligible entity;
       ``(ii) a copy of any report made on an audit of the 
     financial records of the eligible entity that was conducted 
     under paragraph (1) during the reporting period;
       ``(iii) an evaluation by the eligible entity of the 
     effectiveness of its use of the Federal funds provided under 
     subsection (a) in leveraging private funds;
       ``(iv) a listing and description of the charter schools 
     served during the reporting period, including the amount of 
     funds used by each school, the type of project facilitated by 
     the grant, and the type of assistance provided to the charter 
     schools;
       ``(v) a description of the activities carried out by the 
     eligible entity to assist charter schools in meeting the 
     objectives set forth in subsection (e); and
       ``(vi) a description of the characteristics of lenders and 
     other financial institutions participating in the activities 
     undertaken by the eligible entity under this section 
     (excluding subsection (k)) during the reporting period.
       ``(C) Secretarial report.--The Secretary shall review the 
     reports submitted under subparagraph (A) and shall provide a 
     comprehensive annual report to Congress on the activities 
     conducted under this section (excluding subsection (k)).
       ``(i) No Full Faith and Credit for Grantee Obligation.--No 
     financial obligation of an eligible entity entered into 
     pursuant to this section (such as an obligation under a 
     guarantee, bond, note, evidence of debt, or loan) shall be an 
     obligation of, or guaranteed in any respect by, the United 
     States. The full faith and credit of the United States is not 
     pledged to the payment of funds which may be required to be 
     paid under any obligation made by an eligible entity pursuant 
     to any provision of this section.
       ``(j) Recovery of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in accordance with 
     chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code, shall collect--
       ``(A) all of the funds in a reserve account established by 
     an eligible entity under subsection (f)(1) if the Secretary 
     determines, not earlier than 2 years after the date on which 
     the eligible entity first received funds under this section 
     (excluding subsection (k)), that the eligible entity has 
     failed to make substantial progress in carrying out the 
     purposes described in subsection (f)(1); or
       ``(B) all or a portion of the funds in a reserve account 
     established by an eligible entity under subsection (f)(1) if 
     the Secretary determines that the eligible entity has 
     permanently ceased to use all or a portion of the funds in 
     such account to accomplish any purpose described in 
     subsection (f)(1).
       ``(2) Exercise of authority.--The Secretary shall not 
     exercise the authority provided in paragraph (1) to collect 
     from any eligible entity any funds that are being properly 
     used to achieve one or more of the purposes described in 
     subsection (f)(1).
       ``(3)  Procedures.--The provisions of sections 451, 452, 
     and 458 of the General Education Provisions Act shall apply 
     to the recovery of funds under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Construction.--This subsection shall not be construed 
     to impair or affect the authority of the Secretary to recover 
     funds under part D of the General Education Provisions Act.
       ``(k) Per-pupil Facilities Aid Program.--
       ``(1) Definition of per-pupil facilities aid program.--In 
     this subsection, the term `per-pupil facilities aid program' 
     means a program in which a State makes payments, on a per-
     pupil basis, to charter schools to provide the schools with 
     financing--
       ``(A) that is dedicated solely for funding charter school 
     facilities; or
       ``(B) a portion of which is dedicated for funding charter 
     school facilities.
       ``(2) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the amount reserved under section 
     5202(b)(1) remaining after the Secretary makes grants under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall make grants, on a 
     competitive basis, to States to pay for the Federal share of 
     the cost of establishing or enhancing, and administering per-
     pupil facilities aid programs.
       ``(B) Period.--The Secretary shall award grants under this 
     subsection for periods of not more than 5 years.
       ``(C) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost 
     described in subparagraph (A) for a per-pupil facilities aid 
     program shall be not more than--
       ``(i) 90 percent of the cost, for the first fiscal year for 
     which the program receives assistance under this subsection;
       ``(ii) 80 percent in the second such year;
       ``(iii) 60 percent in the third such year;
       ``(iv) 40 percent in the fourth such year; and
       ``(v) 20 percent in the fifth such year.
       ``(D) State share.--A State receiving a grant under this 
     subsection may partner with 1 or more organizations to 
     provide up to 50 percent of the State share of the cost of 
     establishing or enhancing, and administering the per-pupil 
     facilities aid program.
       ``(E) Multiple grants.--A State may receive more than 1 
     grant under this subsection, so long as the amount of such 
     funds provided to charter schools increases with each 
     successive grant.
       ``(3) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State that receives a grant under this 
     subsection shall use the funds made available through the 
     grant to establish or enhance, and administer, a per-pupil 
     facilities aid program for charter schools in the State of 
     the applicant.
       ``(B) Evaluations; technical assistance; dissemination.--
     From the amount made available to a State through a grant 
     under this subsection for a fiscal year, the State may 
     reserve not more than 5 percent to carry out evaluations, to 
     provide technical assistance, and to disseminate information.
       ``(C) Supplement, not supplant.--Funds made available under 
     this subsection shall be used to supplement, and not 
     supplant, State, and local public funds expended to provide 
     per pupil facilities aid programs, operations financing 
     programs, or other programs, for charter schools.
       ``(4) Requirements.--
       ``(A) Voluntary participation.--No State may be required to 
     participate in a program carried out under this subsection.
       ``(B) State law.--
       ``(i) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subsection, a State shall establish or enhance, and 
     administer, a per-pupil facilities aid program for charter 
     schools in the State, that--

       ``(I) is specified in State law; and
       ``(II) provides annual financing, on a per-pupil basis, for 
     charter school facilities.

       ``(ii) Special rule.--A State that is required under State 
     law to provide its charter schools with access to adequate 
     facility space may be eligible to receive a grant under this 
     subsection if the State agrees to use the funds to develop a 
     per-pupil facilities aid program consistent with the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       ``(5) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, a State shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may require.''.

     SEC. 7. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       Section 5205 (20 U.S.C. 7221d) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 5205. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--From the amount reserved under section 
     5202(b)(2), the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) use not less than 50 percent of such funds to award 
     grants in accordance with subsection (b); and

[[Page 13135]]

       ``(2) use the remainder of such funds to--
       ``(A) disseminate technical assistance to State entities in 
     awarding subgrants under section 5203;
       ``(B) disseminate best practices; and
       ``(C) evaluate the impact of the charter school program, 
     including the impact on student achievement, carried out 
     under this subpart.
       ``(b)  Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants, on a 
     competitive basis, to eligible applicants for the purpose of 
     carrying out the activities described in section 5202(a)(1), 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C) of section 5203(a)(1), and 
     section 5203(g).
       ``(2) Terms and conditions.--Except as otherwise provided 
     in this subsection, grants awarded under this subsection 
     shall have the same terms and conditions as grants awarded to 
     State entities under section 5203.
       ``(3) Eligible applicant defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `eligible applicant' means an eligible 
     applicant that desires to open a charter school in--
       ``(A) a State that did not apply for a grant under section 
     5203;
       ``(B) a State that did not receive a grant under section 
     5203; or
       ``(C) a State that received a grant under section 5203 and 
     is in the 4th or 5th year of the grant period for such grant.
       ``(c) Contracts and Grants.--The Secretary may carry out 
     any of the activities described in this section directly or 
     through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements.''.

     SEC. 8. RECORDS TRANSFER.

       Section 5208 (20 U.S.C. 7221g) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``as quickly as possible and'' before ``to 
     the extent practicable''; and
       (2) by striking ``section 602'' and inserting ``section 
     602(14)''.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 5210 (20 U.S.C. 7221i) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (K);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (L) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end, the following:
       ``(M) may serve prekindergarten or post secondary 
     students.'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``under section 
     5203(d)(3)''; and
       (3) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(5) Expansion of a high-quality charter school.--The term 
     `expansion of a high-quality charter school' means a high-
     quality charter school that either significantly increases 
     its enrollment or adds one or more grades to its school.
       ``(6) High-quality charter school.--The term `high-quality 
     charter school' means a charter school that--
       ``(A) shows evidence of strong academic results, which may 
     include strong academic growth as determined by a State;
       ``(B) has no significant issues in the areas of student 
     safety, financial management, or statutory or regulatory 
     compliance;
       ``(C) has demonstrated success in significantly increasing 
     student academic achievement and attainment for all students 
     served by charter schools; and
       ``(D) has demonstrated success in increasing student 
     academic achievement for the subgroups of students described 
     in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II).
       ``(7) Replicable, high-quality charter school model.--The 
     term `replicable, high-quality charter school model' means a 
     high-quality charter school that will open a new campus under 
     an existing charter.''.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 5211 (20 U.S.C. 7221j) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 5211. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subpart $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and each of the 5 
     succeeding fiscal years.''.

     SEC. 11. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Repeal.--Subpart 2 of part B of title V (20 U.S.C. 7223 
     et seq.) is repealed.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section 2 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 5203 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 5203. Grants to support high-quality charter schools.'';

       (2) by striking the item relating to section 5204 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 5204. Facilities Financing Assistance.''; and

       (3) by striking subpart 2 of part B of title V.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 112-200. 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.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kline

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-200.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, beginning on line 6, strike ``English language 
     learners'' and insert ``limited English proficient 
     students''.
       Page 5, line 19, insert ``or subpart 2'' after ``this 
     subpart''.
       Page 7, line 16, insert ``Grant Number and Amount;'' after 
     ``Review;''.
       Page 7, line 17, insert ``; Waivers'' after ``Projects''.
       Page 8, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(3) Grant number and amount.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that the number of grants awarded under this section and the 
     award amounts will allow for a sufficient number of new 
     grants to be awarded under this section for each succeeding 
     fiscal year.''.
       Page 8, line 7, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph (4).
       Page 8, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(5) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive any statutory or 
     regulatory requirement over which the Secretary exercises 
     administrative authority except any such requirement relating 
     to the elements of a charter school described in section 
     5210(1), if--
       ``(A) the waiver is requested in an approved application 
     under this section; and
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that granting such a waiver 
     will promote the purpose of this subpart.''.
       Page 11, line 16, strike ``English language learners'' and 
     insert ``limited English proficient students''.
       Page 12, line 5, strike ``expanding'' and insert ``the 
     expansion of''.
       Page 12, line 7, insert ``of'' before ``how''.
       Page 12, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 13, after line 2, insert the following:

       ``(III) a description of how the eligible applicant will 
     solicit and consider input from parents and other members of 
     the community on the implementation and operation of each 
     charter school receiving funds under the entity's program; 
     and''

       Page 13, line 4, strike ``and''.
       Page 13, line 9, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 13, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(E) of how the entity will help the charter schools 
     receiving funds under the entity's program consider the 
     transportation needs of the schools' students; and
       ``(F) of how the entity will support diverse charter school 
     models, including models that serve rural communities.''.
       Page 13, line 22, strike ``the charter school'' and insert 
     ``each charter school''.
       Page 14, line 1, strike ``and''.
       Page 14, line 2, insert before the semicolon, ``, the Age 
     Discrimination Act of 1975, and title IX of the Education 
     Amendments of 1972''.
       Page 14, beginning on line 3, strike ``the schools'' and 
     insert ``each charter school''.
       Page 14, beginning on line 6, strike ``English language 
     learners'' and insert ``limited English proficient 
     students''.
       Page 14, line 7, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 14, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(iii) ensures that each charter school solicits and 
     considers input from parents and other members of the 
     community on the implementation and operation of the 
     school;''.
       Page 14, line 15, strike ``English language learners'' and 
     insert ``limited English proficient students''.
       Page 14, beginning on line 22, amend clause (i) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) assessing annual performance data of the schools, 
     including, as appropriate, graduation rates and student 
     growth; and''.
       Page 15, line 8, strike ``and''.
       Page 15, line 12, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 15, after line 12, insert the following:
       ``(G) the entity will ensure that each charter school in 
     the State make publicly available, consistent with the 
     dissemination requirements of the annual State report card, 
     the information parents need to make informed decisions about 
     the educational options available to their children, 
     including information on the educational program, student 
     support services, and annual performance and enrollment data 
     for the groups of students described in section 
     1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II).''.
       Page 16, line 17, insert ``proposed'' before ``number''.
       Page 17, line 7, strike ``and''.
       Page 17, line 10, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 17, insert after line 10, the following:
       ``(I) the entity's plan to solicit and consider input from 
     parents and other members of the community on the 
     implementation and operation of the charter schools in the 
     State.''.
       Page 18, beginning on line 7, strike subparagraph (D).
       Page 18, line 9, redesignate subparagraph (E) as 
     subparagraph (D).
       Page 18, line 13, redesignate subparagraph (F) as 
     subparagraph (E).
       Page 18, line 18, redesignate subparagraph (G) as 
     subparagraph (F).

[[Page 13136]]

       Page 18, line 20, strike the comma after ``factors''.
       Page 19, line 2, strike ``English language learners'' and 
     insert ``limited English proficient students''.
       Page 19, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(G) The State entity supports charter schools that 
     support at-risk students through activities such as dropout 
     prevention or dropout recovery.
       ``(H) The State entity authorizes all charter schools in 
     the State to serve as school food authorities.''.
       Page 19, line 12, insert ``by each subgrant awarded under 
     this section'' after ``number of students served''.
       Page 19, line 14, strike ``grant'' and insert ``subgrant''.
       Page 20, line 10, strike ``in which the subgrants were 
     awarded'' and insert ``that received subgrants under this 
     section''.
       Page 20, line 23, strike ``not less than 3 grants to 
     eligible entities that have'' and insert ``grants to eligible 
     entities that have the highest-quality''.
       Page 20, line 24, after ``subsection (d)'' insert ``, after 
     considering the diversity of such applications,''
       Page 21, beginning on line 11, amend subsection (b) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(b) Grantee Selection.--The Secretary shall evaluate each 
     application submitted under subsection (d), and shall 
     determine whether the application is sufficient to merit 
     approval.''.
       Page 26, beginning on line 2, strike ``subsection'' and 
     insert ``paragraph''.
       Page 32, line 23, strike ``To'' and insert ``Except as 
     provided in clause (ii), to''.
       Page 33, line 7, strike ``A'' and insert ``Notwithstanding 
     clause (i), a''.
       Page 33, line 10, insert ``, but which does not have a per-
     pupil facilities aid program for charter schools specified in 
     State law,'' after ``space''.
       Page 34, line 7, insert ``, and eligible entities and 
     States receiving grants under section 5204'' before the 
     semicolon.
       Page 36, line 8, strike ``inserting'' and insert 
     ``adding''.
       Page 37, line 4, strike ``subgroups'' and insert 
     ``groups''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment 
offered by myself and Mr. Miller.
  In all our goals for an improved education system, one stands above 
the rest: ensuring students have access to a quality education. My 
colleagues and I firmly believe supporting the growth of high-
performing charter schools will help us reach that goal.
  Charter schools epitomize choice and flexibility in education, and 
represent an efficient way school districts can transform an 
underperforming traditional public school into a dynamic learning 
institution. Thanks to the additional autonomy afforded to these 
institutions, charter schools have become renowned for their ability to 
effectively meet the needs of the unique student population.
  A great case study of adaptability of charters is Locke High School, 
located in the tough South Central area of Los Angeles. Students in 
this area face a multitude of challenges--from gang violence to poverty 
to troubled homes. Locke High School had some of the lowest test scores 
and highest dropout rates in the country. Only roughly 5 percent of its 
students went on to 4-year colleges and universities.
  In 2007, the LA Unified School District agreed to transform Locke 
High School into a public charter school. Charter school officials 
instituted broad changes to the school, such as improved facilities, 
new teachers, parental volunteer hours, uniforms, and strict 
disciplinary measures. As a result, attendance rates have increased to 
90 percent--a real success story.
  Stories of charter schools that inspire success in students no matter 
the circumstance exist beyond Locke High School. These institutions 
have benefited children and communities in cities across the United 
States. Unfortunately, charter schools are not growing as they should. 
This act will facilitate the development of high-performing charter 
schools by consolidating Federal funding streams, incentivizing States 
to support the development and expansion of these institutions, and 
evaluating the benefits these schools offer to students and their 
families.
  However, as my colleagues and I continued to work together on this 
legislation, we realized even more could be done to help charter 
schools assist a variety of students, including those most at risk. The 
accomplishments of a charter school like Locke High School should be 
encouraged and supported. That's why we have developed language in the 
manager's amendment that would offer incentives to States that use 
charter schools to reach out to special populations, such as at-risk 
students.
  Additionally, Members on both sides of the aisle decided steps must 
be taken to help Federal Charter School Program grants remain on a 
sustainable path. The manager's amendment directs the Secretary of 
Education to undertake proper planning efforts to ensure sufficient new 
grants can be awarded annually to the best applicants.
  As we work to ensure all students have access to a quality education, 
this act is a step in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, the manager's 
amendment makes commonsense adjustments to improve the underlying 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in 
opposition, although I am not in opposition to the manager's amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I will be brief here because I want 
to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, but I want to point out that 
the manager's amendment again was a lot of hard work by the staff to 
put together the various ideas from the members of the committee on 
both sides of the aisle, but I think they have done a spectacular job, 
and the chairman and myself both support this legislation.
  I am very supportive of the efforts in the manager's amendment to 
make sure that parent and community input is a priority in the 
implementation of the charter school improvement and the operation of 
those charter schools. We require that, as you consider the beginning 
of a charter school, you take into consideration, and the State 
entities take into consideration, the input of parents and the 
community. I think this is very important.
  We know that there are many, many parents that want to be involved in 
creating charter schools, sustaining a charter school, thinking about 
what they want to do with the schools in their neighborhood. I think 
this is an important component that I hope to see in the 
reauthorization of the ESEA, that more consideration is given to 
community and to parents about how we turn schools around so that they 
have some skin in the game, they have some interest in the game, and 
they have a stake in the outcome of that.
  The manager's amendment also requires that each charter school in the 
State make publicly available information on the educational program, 
the student support services, teachers, and annual performance 
enrollment data for all students by the subgroups, and it strengthens 
the application process that includes application and description of 
how schools will consider the transportation needs of their students, 
and also on how the schools and entities will support diverse charter 
school models, including those serving rural areas.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado to 
talk about the replication of high-quality charters.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this process really demonstrates strong 
bipartisan leadership and a commitment to our Nation's children from 
both Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller, as well as all the 
members of the committee and their staff. And I express not only my 
deep appreciation but, I am sure, the deep appreciation of the many 
millions of children that this bill will help provide additional 
opportunities for to them both.
  This manager's amendment makes a good bill even better, including 
allowing priority for States that allow charters to have autonomous 
school food services. It's critical charter schools

[[Page 13137]]

are allowed to have independent food services. Many lack cafeteria 
space in some facilities, and this amendment will prioritize States 
that allow for that. We all know how important nutrition is for 
success. Transportation to and from charter schools is also critical.
  The bill also allows for the expansion, for the very first time, a 
replication of successful charter school models, again deferring to 
States in that regard. Previously, these monies were only eligible for 
the establishment of innovative new charter schools, a worthy goal and 
one that is preserved under this bill as well. But we are now 10 years 
later down the road. We know a little bit about what works and what 
doesn't work.
  Based on that, the bill in the manager's amendment, A, upped the ante 
on the best practices for the States in terms of being good 
authorizers, and, B, allowed some of the funds to be used to expand and 
replicate proven success, as well as preserving some for the continued 
innovation, which is also necessary to drive our education system 
forward.
  This manager's amendment also supports dropout prevention and 
recovery and rural needs. Figuring out how charter schools can fit in 
the context of rural and smaller school districts has also been an 
important learning curve over the last 10 years. This bill and the 
manager's amendment incorporate some of the very best thinking in that 
regard in terms of making sure that States have plans to ensure that 
charter schools can also benefit rural areas.
  This bipartisan amendment exemplifies the great work of the committee 
leadership overall in the bill and truly does improve upon the base 
bill. I am very proud to be strongly supportive of the manager's 
amendment as well as the underlying bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Davis of California

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-200.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 17, redesignate paragraph (1) as paragraph 
     (2), and insert the following:
       ``(1) improve the United States education system and 
     educational opportunities for all Americans by supporting 
     innovation in public education in public school settings that 
     prepare students to compete and contribute to the global 
     economy;''.
       Page 3, line 20, redesignate paragraph (2) as paragraph 
     (3).
       Page 3, line 22, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (4).
       Page 4, line 1, redesignate paragraph (4) as paragraph (5).
       Page 4, line 5, redesignate paragraph (5) as paragraph (6).
       Page 4, line 10, redesignate paragraph (6) as paragraph 
     (7).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply 
stresses the need to constantly seek ways to improve and find 
innovative ways to teach our students in the public education system.
  Given the state of the economy, we need to encourage economic and job 
growth from every angle. We need to do whatever is possible to compete 
in the global economy. The best way to stay on the cutting edge is to 
build a workforce that can compete against the best and the brightest 
in the world. We need schools to find new and innovative ways to teach 
our students, particularly in the key subjects of math, science, and 
engineering.
  One example of an innovative school is the High Tech High charter 
school in San Diego, which has the goal of bringing highly skilled 
employees into the workforce.
  With the support of technology companies such as Qualcomm and 
Microsoft, High Tech High has taken innovation in its curriculum to a 
new level. Since 2003, the result has been that 100 percent of High 
Tech High's graduates have gone on to attend college at such 
universities as NYU, MIT, and Yale.
  High Tech High has successfully found innovative ways to teach 
innovation. And what does innovation in education mean? It means 
teachers and principals who find ways to inspire and get students 
excited to learn. It can mean teaching students and children how to 
think, how to work together, how to think across disciplines, and, most 
importantly, how to act on their knowledge. It will take innovation to 
meet these goals to consistently improve instruction in the classroom.
  Steve Jobs, as we know, led Apple to become one of the largest and 
most successful technology companies in history. His visions led to 
such products as the iPod, the Mac computer, and, recently, the iPad.
  Mr. Jobs once said Apple's success is not just about how much money 
it invests in research and development; it's about the people and 
creative vision. ``It's about the people you have, how you're led, and 
how much you get it,'' Mr. Jobs told Fortune magazine in 1998.
  ``People,'' Mr. Chairman, ``people'' is the key word. With better and 
more innovative schools, we will have more creative people entering our 
workforce.
  Unfortunately, the World Economic Forum just announced that the 
United States dropped to fifth place in the world's most competitive 
economies behind nations such as Switzerland and Singapore. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, that's the wrong direction and we need to turn it around.
  If America is going to reach its potential, we need schools that 
cultivate entrepreneurs and visionaries. We need more companies such as 
Apple that can compete globally.
  Please join me in stressing the need to support innovation, beginning 
with our approach to education. I applaud the efforts of our bipartisan 
team here that's worked so hard on this underlying bill and the 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, 
although I do not intend to oppose it.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  This amendment is entirely consistent with the underlying purpose of 
the charter school movement. It improves the bill. I support the 
amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLINE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation.
  I think one of the intents of this bill and, hopefully, in our 
reforms of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is to keep our 
eye on global competition and understand that we must prepare today's 
students for tomorrow's global economy and the global competition that 
that suggests.
  I strongly support and have had long conversations with the 
gentlewoman on this amendment and agree to it.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Paulsen

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-200.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 22, after ``period'' insert ``, unless the 
     eligible applicant demonstrates to

[[Page 13138]]

     the State entity not less than 3 years of improved 
     educational results in the areas described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (D) of section 5210(6) for students enrolled in such 
     charter school''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the underlying 
bill, H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents through Charter Schools Act, 
and to offer this amendment that will give America's students more 
opportunities to succeed.
  My amendment will make it easier for successful charter schools to 
replicate and expand in a timely manner because by giving these schools 
the ability to receive an expansion grant after 3 years rather than the 
current 5 years, they will be able to grow and offer quality education 
to even more students and provide expanded choices to parents in a 
shorter period of time.
  So this amendment will also strengthen the bill by continuing to 
break down barriers to help quality charter schools grow to meet their 
staggering demand.
  Currently, Mr. Chairman, an estimated 420,000 students across the 
country are being kept on waiting lists to attend the charter school of 
their choice. We should be giving these students more opportunities to 
attend and learn and be successful.
  My home State of Minnesota has seen tremendous success because we 
have been a pioneer in expanding educational options and choice. In 
1991, we were the first State to pass a charter school law, and we now 
have 149 registered charter schools with over 35,000 students attending 
them. Today, over 40 States and the District of Columbia have 
established charter school laws of their own.
  I support the underlying bill which was crafted bipartisanly. It 
encourages States to support the development of charter schools. It 
streamlines funds to reduce administrative burdens and improve funding 
opportunities for the replication of successful charter schools and 
facilities assistance. It also supports an evaluation of the school's 
impact on students, families, and communities while encouraging best 
practices sharing between charters and traditional public schools.
  There is no doubt that charter schools are a prime example that 
innovative education methods are constantly at work, and this bill will 
give our schools the ability to do even more for our children.
  We all know that these charter schools consistently rank as top 
performers among the U.S. Department of Education's Blue Ribbon 
Schools, and multiple national rankings of the Best High Schools in 
America. It is no surprise that public support and demand for these 
charter schools is steadily increasing.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the legislation recognizes the opportunity to 
enhance the empowerment of parents and should go forward, allowing them 
to play an active role in their child's education. This amendment will 
give the most successful schools the ability to grow and offer even 
more quality education options to more parents and students.
  I want to thank Chairman Kline for his leadership, the ranking member 
from California for his leadership, and I also want to thank 
Representative Polis for cosponsoring this amendment and for his 
leadership and his true advocacy, his steadfast advocacy for expansion 
of school choice and opportunities across the country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Colorado is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring forward this bipartisan 
bill. Let me express why it is important. To delay the expansion of a 
successful charter school for 5 years and prevent States from having 
the flexibility to deploy these resources after 3 proven years only 
consigns more kids to failure and lack of opportunity. It is an 
important amendment because it provides flexibility for States and 
charter schools to expand what works. And 1 year could be an 
aberration, 2 years of proven success can be lucky, but 3 years of 
success is hard to dispute.
  When a school has 3 years of proven success, to make it wait 5 full 
years before it's eligible to expand with Federal money only consigns 
all of those students who would have been served to otherwise reside on 
the waiting list and are forced to attend schools that provide less 
educational opportunity. We are only young once in life, and that's why 
with regard to education and improving the quality of our public 
schools, we all feel the fierce urgency of now.
  When a charter school starts out, it is not possible to predict 
whether it will be successful or not, and that's the purpose of the 
innovation grants. Without this amendment, charter schools that have 
proven success could be forced to wait 5 years before being able to 
replicate and expand, a wait that our Nation can't afford and, most of 
all, those kids on the waiting list can't afford.
  This revision is especially needed for charter schools that don't use 
the grants for planning, which is another year before the charter 
school starts, so it could be 1 year or 3 or 4 years. But if they don't 
use the year for a planning year, it is actually a full 5-year wait 
before the school would have access to expansion and replication 
resources without this amendment. So I am particularly glad of Mr. 
Paulsen's effort to bring this forward.
  The national activity section of the bill already reflects this. In 
fact, the national activity section provides funding after 3 years of 
demonstrated success, but that's only 2.5 percent of the total funds of 
the bill. Most of the funds under this bill are pushed to the States 
and allowed for the dual purpose of innovation and expansion and 
replication. And essentially what this bill remedies, it reflects the 
national activities language in saying that the States have the 
discretion, they are actually allowed to require 5 years of 
demonstrated success. I wouldn't encourage them to do that, but they 
have the flexibility to do it with 3 years of demonstrated success to 
ensure that proven educational opportunities for kids can reach more 
kids sooner under this amendment which is why I am proud to lend it my 
support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask for adoption of this bipartisan 
amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lujan

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-200.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 11, line 12, insert before the semicolon ``, 
     including, where appropriate, instruction and professional 
     development in science, math, technology, and engineering 
     education''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, the United States has the best research 
facilities and educational facilities in the world, and we continue to 
be a leader in developing cutting-edge technology in fields spanning 
from renewable energy to medicine. But our Nation's competitiveness 
depends upon our ability to educate our students and equip them with 
the skills they need to succeed in the jobs of the future.
  The President, congressional leadership, and business have all agreed 
that our Nation must do better in order to compete and excel globally 
in science,

[[Page 13139]]

technology, engineering and math, or STEM fields. My amendment today 
simply says that entities include in their application a description of 
how the school's program would share best practices between charter 
schools and other public schools, including best practices in 
instruction and professional development in STEM education. This 
amendment supports the identification of best practices and encourages 
opportunities for teacher training and mentoring in STEM.
  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. high 
school seniors recently tested below the international average for 21 
countries in mathematics and science. This is simply not acceptable. We 
must make a commitment to restore science and innovation as keys to a 
new American economy. We must ensure that America's students are 
trained to be innovators, critical thinkers, problems solvers, and 
prepared to become part of the work force for the 21st century.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LUJAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
thank him for offering the amendment, and I rise in strong support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, 
but I do not intend to oppose it.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. This amendment simply emphasizes the importance of STEM 
education. It is widely recognized in the business community, the 
education community and throughout America that there is a growing gap 
that we need to fill in STEM education. By underscoring the importance 
of STEM education, this is helpful to the bill. I encourage my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-200.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 17, begining on line 14, strike subparagraph (A), and 
     insert the following:
       ``(A) In the case of a State entity located in a State that 
     allows an entity other than a local educational agency to be 
     an authorized public chartering agency, the State has a 
     quality authorized public chartering agency that is an entity 
     other than a local educational agency.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, again, one of the best practices that I 
think we have learned over the last 10 years is the importance of 
having alternative authorizing agencies. In fact, 32 States have 
created alternative authorizing agencies, including my home State of 
Colorado which has a charter school institute. In other States it takes 
the form of vesting mayors, university board of regents, or State 
boards of education as alternative authorizers.

                              {time}  1510

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

[[Page 13140]]

best practice that we've come to learn over the last decade can better 
be reflected and that hopefully States that haven't yet had the chance 
to look at a way to create an alternative authorizing agency will be 
able to learn from the States that have under this, and do so, to 
ensure that charter schools get a fair hearing, prevent the adversarial 
outcomes that too frequently come from the appeals process, and ensure 
that choice is given meaning in rural school districts and small school 
districts.
  I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I do 
not intend to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  The gentleman from Colorado has very succinctly, clearly, and I would 
even say eloquently explained the problem in the authorizing business 
in charter schools and offered a very, very good solution. This is a 
good amendment. It improves the bill. I support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-200.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 20, line 13, insert ``or'' after the semicolon.
       Page 20, line 14, strike ``; or'' and insert a period.
       Page 20, line 15, strike paragraph (3).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 2218, which 
would strike a provision that allows Governors to apply and receive 
direct grants from the Federal Government and preempts State education 
agencies from their oversight and operational responsibilities. Let me 
say before I defend this amendment that I think that H.R. 2218 makes 
very critical changes to the charter school program that are long 
overdue, and it moves in the right direction in terms of being more 
inclusive of students, including groups that have typically had limited 
access to charters such as students with disabilities and English 
language learners. I believe that my amendment will secure and protect 
these improvements and expansions of charter school programs.
  I really question the wisdom of putting Governors' offices in the 
business of overseeing charter programs and implementing these 
extremely complex programs. We do know that Governors' offices do not 
have the infrastructure, expertise, or staff to do the job--a job which 
includes close monitoring of schools, holding authorities accountable, 
and much more. These are intricate programs with multiple moving parts 
that require time and labor-intensive administration.
  I do believe that in my own State of Wisconsin, for example, we have 
constitutionally elected superintendents of public instruction. And it 
should remain within their purview to oversee and administer this 
program. Certainly, we all want Governors to be involved. But I think 
that my amendment makes it really clear that the ultimate 
responsibility should stay with those State public instruction 
agencies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. All across the country we've seen Governors and other 
State and local officials stand up in support of important education 
reform efforts that put the interest of children first. The underlying 
legislation before us today expands the number of State entities that 
may compete for charter school funding, allowing Governors to act on 
their support for charter schools. It addresses a real concern that has 
arisen in States that do not have a State education agency which 
supports charter schools.
  Today, there are more than 420,000 students on charter school wait 
lists. And we've all seen the recent documentaries, ``Waiting for 
Superman'' and ``The Lottery.'' These chronicle low-income students 
trapped in failing schools, desperate for better education 
opportunities. Instead of helping States meet this truly incredible 
demand for more high quality charter schools, unfortunately, this 
amendment would actually stifle charter school growth by limiting a 
Governor's ability to support these institutions.
  At the core of this bill is our desire to see more quality charter 
schools available for more students. More choice, more opportunity. 
Less ``Waiting for Superman.'' And so I oppose this amendment because 
it works in opposition to what the underlying bill is trying to do and 
what we're trying to do--and that's give the States more opportunities 
to create and replicate more quality charter schools.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLINE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I know Ms. Moore has reserved her 
time so she can respond to this, but I just want to say I think we 
tried to work this out in this legislation in the fashion that if a 
Governor makes application, he must do this in conjunction with the 
SEA. And the idea that the Governor would do this on his own, or 
whatever, we forced that working together simply because, as you point 
out, most Governors' offices would not have the internal capacity to 
carry out the responsibilities under the grant. But to deny the 
Governor the opportunity seems to me doesn't make sense when it's 
required that the SEA be involved.
  I will just say I know why you're offering the amendment, and I am 
obviously reluctant to oppose it, but I think we have addressed this 
concern in the legislation.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KLINE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. I want to thank the gentlemen for responding, even though 
they are opposed.
  Let me say that I am old enough to have gone through several 
gubernatorial races; and Governors run for office based on crime 
prevention and crime control, economic development, lowering taxes, 
environmental protection, and even welfare reform. And so the public in 
many States have elected to elect separate constitutional officers that 
deal solely with educational opportunity. And by not adopting this 
amendment, we are literally cutting off the legs of the statewide 
constitutional officers to do the only duty for which they are elected, 
and that is for educational purposes, and transferring those duties to 
a Governor whose agenda may have nothing to do with education at all.
  With respect to the notion that the Governor has to work with the 
statewide superintendent of public instruction, under current law right 
now, superintendents do work with the Governor. And so I am sad that 
this is being opposed by both the majority and the minority on this 
committee because I do think that, rather than expanding opportunities 
for these 420,000 charter school students, it is going to really put 
them all under the purview of some ideology of some Governor, Democrat, 
Republican, independent, whatever. They are going to be subsumed by 
ideology instead of under the purview of a publicly elected State 
public instruction superintendent.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. I believe that the underlying legislation,

[[Page 13141]]

as Ranking Member Miller alluded to, has language in it that strongly 
encourages, at the very least, Governors to work with their SEAs. But I 
would underscore the point that States are different. Some States are 
set up with different relationships between the different elected 
officers. They're not all elected the same way they are maybe in 
Wisconsin or something. Our underlying purpose here is to expand access 
to quality charter schools, and I believe this amendment gets in the 
way of that.
  So I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-200.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(6) Priority.--In awarding grants under this subsection, 
     the Secretary is encouraged to give priority to States that 
     encourage green school building practices and 
     certification.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and their 
staffs for their work to produce this reauthorization bill that makes a 
good deal of progress from the existing law. I share many of the 
concerns of our colleagues who want to see even more improvement in the 
accountability, equity and transparency of charter schools as we 
continue to move the bill forward.
  I have a simple amendment today in this bill that reauthorizes the 
Charter School Program. My amendment encourages the Secretary of 
Education to award a priority for green school building practices to 
ensure that any Federal investment in charter school facilities would 
improve the energy efficiency and environmental advantages of those 
schools.
  Energy bills are the second highest operating expenditure for schools 
after personnel costs. So we must do all we can to help schools 
implement green building practices and reduce their energy costs. My 
amendment will help ensure that schools spend educational resources on 
educating students rather than heating and cooling inefficient 
buildings.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 30 percent of 
energy consumed in buildings is used unnecessarily or inefficiently. By 
using green building techniques to eliminate areas where energy is used 
unwisely and is wasted, a school's operating costs can be reduced 
significantly. A dollar wasted on inefficient heating is lost forever. 
A dollar invested in a child will pay dividends forever.
  The U.S. Green Building Council supports this amendment and in a 
letter to me they wrote: ``On average, green schools save $100,000 per 
year--enough to hire two new teachers, buy 200 new computers, or 
purchase 5,000 new textbooks.'' They go on to note that green schools 
don't cost more, but in fact can be built at or below regional cost and 
operated within existing facilities' budgets and save money.
  Now, I'm disappointed that the bill we are considering today 
reauthorizes only charter school programs. We should be considering 
full reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We 
should be considering a public school construction bill. Assisting 
local school districts with school construction and modernization would 
help rebuild and upgrade local schools and create jobs.
  But I do want to see this amendment included in the bill. It will 
help schools all across America. It will save energy; it will create 
jobs; it will improve education.
  I urge its passage.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining, please.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise in support of this amendment. 
I think it is very important for all the reasons the gentleman from New 
Jersey cited.
  In terms of the savings, we are seeing more and more schools taking 
economic liabilities, if you will, such as parking lots and vacant land 
around the school, turning them into economic assets, and saving the 
kind of money--it has been recorded now for a number of years the money 
that is actually saved in these design practices in the schools that 
free up those resources for other educational purposes.
  I want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. I think the gentleman from New Jersey has, as he put it, 
good language that should not only be included in this bill, but I 
think in other relevant construction bills as well.
  Very simply, it encourages the Secretary to give priority to States 
that encourage green building practices and certification. Again, that 
could be as simple as a State making sure that those options are 
available. Other States have tax credits or other methods of 
incentivizing green school development.
  When we are talking about our national energy policy, we are talking 
about how frustrated our constituents are with gas prices; we're 
talking about our national security as a Nation and our energy 
security. I think that for this Congress to ensure that in every bill, 
large and small, we encourage--again, without any mandate to school 
districts, without any requirement, but encourage the Secretary to give 
priority to States that have at least some system for encouraging green 
school building development, I think this is a good thing to start 
right here in a small way, in a bill that certainly won't on its own 
turn around the energy future of our country, but on its own does have 
the potential to help drive scale of green technology without 
compromising educational outcomes.
  Again, I think this is an appropriate addition to the bill and will 
hopefully lead to improvements of energy efficiency in charter schools 
across the country.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. The underlying bill maintains and strengthens Federal 
support to assist charter schools in accessing credit for facilities 
construction, as it has in the past and will in this, but it doesn't 
get into the details of school construction. It doesn't take another 
step towards getting the Federal Government involved in school 
construction.
  I understand there's a great excitement in some areas about putting 
green in any construction, or in anything for that matter. If it's 
green, apparently it's better.
  This amendment, I'm afraid, will actually weaken efforts at the State 
level to fund school construction. It will dramatically increase the 
cost of building elementary and secondary charter schools. Where 
there's already limited funds available, some States, school districts, 
and charter schools will be forced to use union workers to construct 
public charter schools and to comply with this need for green schools.
  Instead of imposing new burdens on charter schools, we should support 
State and local efforts to raise student academic achievement, stay out 
of the school construction business. This amendment is not an 
appropriate role for the Federal Government. I urge opposition to the 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman of the committee reads 
too

[[Page 13142]]

much into this amendment. It says, in awarding grants, the Secretary is 
encouraged to give priority to States that encourage green building 
practices and certification. In other words, if it certifiably will 
save energy and thereby save the school district money, it should be 
encouraged. What in the world could be wrong with that?
  I would urge my chair to reconsider after he has read this amendment 
and support us in the passage of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am, at the suggestion of my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey, indeed rereading the amendment. It says: 
``Priority.--In awarding grants under this subsection, the Secretary is 
encouraged''--and we've got to figure out what ``encouraged'' means--
``to give priority''--I think we know what ``priority'' means--``to 
States that encourage''--we're encouraging again--``green school 
building practices and certification.''.
  Again, I think this language is going to make it more difficult for 
States to be able to build these charter schools. We're trying to 
expand charter schools here and improve academic opportunities for 
schools, not get into a semantics battle over encouraging and green, 
which this is necessarily going to lead to. So, again, I oppose the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.


              Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-200.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 36, line 22, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 37, line 2, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 37, beginning on line 3, strike subparagraph (D).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Iowa is 
happy to be recognized.
  Addressing this issue, in particular it's this: that the intent of 
this bill is a good intent, and I support it, providing an extra 
incentive for high quality charter schools. It rewards those high 
quality charter schools with an opportunity to receive grants that are 
rewards for that excellence that's there, and I certainly support the 
initiative and the philosophy behind that.
  It also identifies high quality charter schools as those that have 
achieved strong academic results, student safety, financial management, 
statutory and regulatory compliance, and has demonstrated significantly 
increasing student academic achievement for all students. And I 
emphasize ``all students.''
  But when I read the bill, then it says, also has demonstrated success 
in increasing student academic achievement for the subgroups of 
students described in, and that's where a lot of people stop reading 
the bill. But when you go back and look at the reference, it sets it up 
so that it requires not just that the schools be open and available to 
students that meet these categories, four categories, Mr. Chairman--
economic disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic 
groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English 
proficiency--but, in fact, the language of the bill requires that all 
four categories must be met in order to qualify for these grants.
  I know there's misinformation out there, but this language has been 
something we have drilled through now for days.
  What my amendment does is strike that requirement that they meet all 
four categories. They will have to show academic achievement for all 
students, and that's what I hope to achieve with this amendment. We go 
back to all students, which automatically includes the redundant list 
that is, I think, unnecessarily in the bill. And the result will be, if 
the King amendment doesn't go on, then we'll have high quality charter 
schools that will have to meet four standards, those four standards of 
minorities and disabilities, economically disadvantaged, and limited 
English proficiencies.
  For example, an inner city school that might have all African 
American students with no limited English proficiencies might qualify 
on the other three categories but be disqualified because they must 
meet all four. That's the purpose of my amendment. I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa.
  We should be very clear about this amendment, what it would do and 
why it would be incredibly detrimental to our students, our schools, 
and to our country.
  In this bill, we require the performance of poor and minority 
students and students with disabilities to be considered when measuring 
the success of charter schools. That's as we chose to do when we passed 
No Child Left Behind, not a perfect education act by any means. But a 
very important component was the disaggregation of the data so that the 
parents of each and every one of those children, so the community 
leaders representing each and every one of those children would know 
how those children were doing.
  We used to have the day when we asked how these students are doing, 
how this school is doing and all we got were the averages, and 
everybody said, oh, it's better. The fact of the matter is this is to 
assure that we understand how those children who have access to these 
schools, how, in fact, they're individually doing.
  These are Title I public schools. They happen to be charter schools. 
And the point of that is to make sure that poor and minority children, 
English learners, students with disabilities have the full access to an 
appropriate education. And to go back to a time when we start to hide 
those results or we don't hold schools accountable for that is to rip 
away the fabric of accountability that parents and communities and 
taxpayers are asking for from those schools.
  The idea that you would be held accountable for English learners if 
you had no English learners in your school is simply hokum. It just 
isn't what the law says.
  This would be an absolute disservice to parents, to the students, and 
to our communities. It takes us back to the time prior to No Child Left 
Behind when schools would participate in hiding their failures and 
champion what they were trying to present to the community as their 
successes, and that's why we have the charter school movement. That's 
why we have accountability now that we never had before. That's why 
this amendment is opposed by so many people who are involved in the 
promotion of the educational opportunities for these populations: the 
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the Center for American 
Progress, the Children's Defense Fund, and many others on the list that 
I would ask to be put into the Record. The National Council of La Raza, 
the National Disability Rights Network.

                 List of Groups Against King Amendment

       The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools; 50CAN; 
     Center for American Progress; Children's Defense Fund; 
     Democrats for Education Reform; Education Equality Project; 
     KIPP; Massachusetts Charter Public School Association; 
     National

[[Page 13143]]

     Council of La Raza; National Disability Rights Network; 
     NewSchools Venture Fund; Council for Exceptional Children; 
     National Center for Learning Disabilities; Easter Seals 
     Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
                                  ____

                                             National Alliance for


                                       Public Charter Schools,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2011.
       Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of nearly 2 million 
     children attending more than 5,000 public charter schools 
     across the country, we applaud you on your successful efforts 
     to bring H.R. 2218, Empowering Parents through Quality 
     Charter Schools Act, to the House Floor for a vote. This 
     legislation will improve the core federal charter school 
     programs that are imperative in helping charter schools 
     overcome state and local inequities as they work to provide 
     more families with high-quality public school options.
       We urge you to reject the amendment offered by 
     Representative Steve King (R-IA). Rep. King's amendment would 
     strike a key provision that defines a high-quality charter 
     school as one that is showing achievement gains for students 
     from historically disadvantaged groups, including low-income 
     and minority students, students with disabilities, and 
     students who are non-native English speakers. As you well 
     know, demonstrating student achievement for all children is 
     imperative for a successful accountability system and one 
     that we fully support.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
           Sincerely,
         The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 50CAN, 
           Center for American Progress, Children's Defense Fund, 
           Democrats for Education Reform, Education Equality 
           Project, KIPP, Massachusetts Charter Public School 
           Association, National Council of La Raza, National 
           Disability Rights Network, NewSchools Venture Fund, 
           Texas Charter School Association, Wyoming Association 
           of Public Charter Schools.
                                  ____



                             Council for Exceptional Children,

                                 Arlington, VA, September 7, 2011.

     Re: Oppose Amendment #9 to H.R. 2218: Empowering Parents 
         through Quality Charter Schools Act
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the Council for 
     Exceptional Children (CEC), whose members serve over 10 
     million children and youth with disabilities and/or gifts and 
     talents as teachers, administrators, parents, and 
     researchers, I urge you to vote against amendment #9 to H.R. 
     2218, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools 
     Act offered by Congressman King (IA). This misguided 
     amendment would weaken protections for students with 
     disabilities in charter schools, and severely undermine the 
     bill, which CEC supported and which passed out of the 
     Education and the Workforce Committee on a bi-partisan vote.
       CEC and its members have long been concerned by reports 
     that demonstrate both a lack of access for students with 
     disabilities to charter schools and a lack of oversight to 
     ensure that students with disabilities in charter schools are 
     appropriately served and receive all of their rights under 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 
     Several provisions within H.R. 2218 support increased access, 
     service and accountability, thereby addressing many of the 
     existing issues for students with disabilities in charter 
     schools. Key to addressing these issues, however, is a 
     provision within H.R. 2218 which defines a High Quality 
     Charter School as one that has demonstrated success in 
     increasing academic achievement for all students, and 
     specifically students with disabilities. Congressman King's 
     amendment would remove this important requirement and lower 
     the standard. Specifically, it would strike language that 
     requires charter schools to have a record of success in 
     working with student subgroups (i.e. students with 
     disabilities, students from low-income backgrounds, English 
     language learners) to receive federal dollars. Striking this 
     important language would weaken protections added in direct 
     response to reports of inequities in charter schools. If 
     included, CEC would no longer support this legislation.
       Provisions for students with disabilities in H.R. 2218 have 
     bi-partisan support and represent a step forward for 
     education policy in our nation by acknowledging that charter 
     schools must include and appropriately serve students with 
     disabilities. CEC supports the passage of H.R. 2218, as it 
     passed out of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and, 
     therefore, urges you to vote against Amendment #9 by 
     Congressman King (IA). This misguided amendment will only 
     weaken this bill and allow inequities for students with 
     disabilities to continue.
       Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
           Sincerely,
     Deborah A. Ziegler,
       Associate Executive Director, Policy and Advocacy Services, 
     Council for Exceptional Children.
                                  ____

                                               National Center for


                                         Learning Disabilities

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2011.
       Dear Representative: The National Center for Learning 
     Disabilities urges you to oppose the King amendment to H.R. 
     2218, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools 
     Act. This amendment would roll back an important and much 
     needed provision focused on the achievement of students with 
     disabilities and other at-risk populations.
       H.R. 2218 makes a number of improvements in how charter 
     schools will enroll, serve, and be held accountable for the 
     achievement of all students, including students with 
     disabilities. Unfortunately, the King amendment would reverse 
     one of these significant improvements by striking the focus 
     on achievement of students with disabilities, English 
     language learners, and other at-risk populations from the 
     definition of a high quality charter school. Rather than 
     embracing the bill's emphasis on improving educational 
     experiences for all students, the amendment alters this 
     critical improvement made to ensure high quality charter 
     schools are focusing on every enrolled student, including 
     those with disabilities and other at-risk populations.
       This bill and its focus on all students represents a 
     critical first step to improving the quality of instruction 
     and educational experiences provided in charter schools. 
     Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller deserve credit for 
     crafting a bipartisan bill that will help both charter 
     schools and the students with disabilities which they serve. 
     The King amendment reverses this course and we urge you to 
     oppose the amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James H. Wendorf,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               National Disability


                                               Rights Network,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2011.
       Dear Representatives: On behalf of protection and advocacy 
     agencies that represent students with disabilities and their 
     families, we thank you for your work to bring the 
     ``Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act'' 
     (H.R. 2218) to a floor vote. The National Disability Rights 
     Network (NDRN) is the national membership association for the 
     57 Protection & Advocacy (P&A) agencies that advocate on 
     behalf of persons with disabilities in every state, the 
     District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. For over 30 
     years, the P&A agencies have been mandated by Congress to 
     protect and enhance the civil rights of individuals with 
     disabilities of any age and in any setting. A central part of 
     the work of the P&As has been to advocate for opportunities 
     for students with disabilities to receive a quality education 
     with their peers.
       NDRN believes that H.R. 2218 improves for students with 
     disabilities the current charter school program, but we urge 
     you to reject the amendment offered by Representative King 
     (R-IA). The amendment strikes a critical provision included 
     in the definition of a high-quality charter school. A 
     successful accountability system is imperative to ensure that 
     charter schools are meeting the needs of students with 
     disabilities, and the amendment will remove the provision 
     that requires high quality charter schools to demonstrate 
     their success in increasing student academic achievement for 
     underserved groups of students, including students with 
     disabilities.
       Thank you for considering our views. If you have any 
     questions, please do not hesitate to contact Cindy Smith, 
     Public Policy Counsel at [email protected] or 202-408-9514 
     ext 101.
           Sincerely,
                                                Curt Decker, J.D.,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                     Easter Seals,


                                     Office of Public Affairs,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2011.
       Dear Representative: Today, you will have the opportunity 
     to vote on H.R. 2218, Empowering Parents through Quality 
     Charter Schools Act. Easter Seals urges you to vote in favor 
     of this legislation that seeks to improve the federal charter 
     school program and make charter schools more available to 
     students with disabilities.
       We urge you to oppose the amendment offered by 
     Representative Steve King (R-IA) to H.R. 2218. Our experience 
     is that students who have their academic progress measured 
     and reported get taught. Mr. King's amendment strips away key 
     policies within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     that require the disaggregation of data of student progress 
     by student subgroup. Currently students with disabilities are 
     a subgroup for which disaggregated data is required. Easter 
     Seals strongly believes that such data is essential for 
     students with disabilities to have opportunities to achieve 
     academic success.
       For nearly 100 years, Easter Seals has been advocating for 
     public policies that allow children and adults with 
     disabilities to live, learn, work and play in their 
     communities. Thank you for considering our views.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Katy Beh Neas,
                      Senior Vice President, Government Relations.

  With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the committee.

[[Page 13144]]


  Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman from Iowa's 
amendment. That's an unusual place for me to be on the floor of this 
House, but I believe that the gentleman from California has correctly 
outlined the problem.
  One of the strengths of an otherwise pretty seriously flawed law in 
No Child Left Behind was the disaggregation of data. It was allowing 
parents and, in this case, authorizers and Governors and school boards 
to look in and make sure that there was no element in a school body 
that was being left behind. It is important, since we're trying to 
replicate high quality schools, that that information be available. I'm 
afraid the gentleman from Iowa's amendment would, in fact, end up 
masking that information and depriving those who need to make decisions 
of the kind of information they need in order to make sure that we're 
replicating high quality charter schools.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa.
  The purpose of No Child Left Behind was to ensure that all children 
are provided a quality education regardless of race, ethnicity, income, 
language, status, or disability. Although the original legislation was 
not perfect and needs improvement, it has helped shed light on 
achievement gaps facing certain groups of children who are in fact 
being left behind by the current system. We are aware of this 
deficiency in its enormity because we collect data by subgroups, and we 
can begin to fix the problem through educational reform.
  Now, this bill we're debating today is limited to charter schools. 
H.R. 2218 includes a definition of high quality charter schools as a 
school that has demonstrated success in increasing student achievement 
for subgroup students described in ESEA, namely economically 
disadvantaged students, students of racial and ethnic minorities, 
students with disabilities, and students with limited English 
proficiency.
  Unfortunately, this amendment would strip away the efforts to 
identify the students who are not performing and will cover up the fact 
that some groups of students are in fact being left behind. Any school 
that is leaving groups of students behind should not be considered high 
quality. I think we really ought to be collecting this data for all of 
the schools, not just those trying to achieve high quality, but we need 
to hold all schools accountable for the success of all students. This 
amendment goes in the opposite direction, and therefore ought to be 
defeated.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I appreciate the tone and the tenor of this debate, and I'm 
completely convinced that all parties involved here want to accomplish 
the same thing, and that is to provide an opportunity for all young 
people in America to achieve to the extent of their ability. That's the 
purpose of this legislation that's before us, high quality charter 
schools, and it's the intent of Mr. Miller and Mr. Scott and Mr. Kline 
and everyone else that likely will vote for this bill. It's also my 
intent.
  I strongly want to see people reach the highest level of their 
achievement. We need to be in the business in this Congress and aware 
of it on a daily basis of seeking to increase the average annual 
productivity of our people. We can do that one at a time, every three-
hundred-and-six millionth of us. Every one of us that increases our 
productivity on a daily basis helps the whole.
  Every class, every generation of people that improves their 
productivity is good for all of us. It takes the load off of the higher 
earners to have the income coming on the lower earners, for example. It 
brings that balance about. I want that. I think that's the intent of 
this bill.
  When the gentleman from California says it's not what the law says, 
that I have somehow misunderstood this, I will tell you that I think it 
has been misrepresented by some analysts behind the scenes--not on this 
floor--and I will just read this into the record in short version. I 
will compress it and then I will give you the quote.
  High-quality charter schools means a charter school that, A, shows 
strong academic results; B, that has no significant issues in the areas 
of student safety, financial management, statutory, regulatory 
compliance; C, has demonstrated success in significantly increasing 
student and academic achievement and attainment for all students served 
by charter schools. I want that. We want that.
  But D says, has demonstrated success in increasing student academic 
achievement for subgroups of students described, and they are this: 
economically disadvantaged students. Now, that's fine. Most kids are 
going to be economically disadvantaged. Some students from racial and 
ethnic groups, that may not be the case. North Dakota or Montana, for 
example, might have to go a long way to find someone who meets that 
category.
  Students with disabilities? Perhaps, but not always. Are we going to 
ask them to go out and recruit students with disabilities in order to 
qualify as a high school, and a high-academic achieving school, high-
quality charter school?
  And the fourth one is students with limited proficiency. That doesn't 
exist in every region in America where there is a need for a charter 
school.
  This sets up a requirement that all four categories be met. If we 
wanted reporting, as the chairman of the committee has suggested, I 
would say then let's ask for a report rather than write this all in as 
a requirement that can't be met because there only can be two results 
of this. Either we're going to follow the law, if it becomes law, in 
which case many, many schools will be disenfranchised, will not be able 
to become high-quality charter schools, or we're going to ignore the 
law. I don't like either of those results.
  I want to follow in here with the intent of this legislation. That's 
why I've offered this amendment. I would urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Chaffetz) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, Chair 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. 2218) to amend 
the charter school program under the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________