I mean The committee will please come order. A quorum is present. The committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider three bills. The chair announces that requests for recorded votes may be postponed pursuant to clause two of rule
11 of the rules of the House uh of representatives and committee rule 14B. Without objection, the chair may recess the committee at any point. Good morning and welcome uh to the committee on education and workforce.
This morning, we're marking up three bills. Taken together, these bills will help children get an excellent education, equip students with the skills they need to succeed in the workplace, uh, and enhance the welfare of boxers while safeguarding their
ability to pursue professional opportunities. We'll begin with two bills that expand access to charter schools. Every student deserves a highquality education that prepares him or her for success in later in life.
Charter schools provide these opportunities. Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes, Credo, found that charter schools students on average learned the equivalent of an additional
six days per year in math and 16 additional days in reading. Academic achievement is especially profound for at risk students. Students in poverty achieve an additional 23 days of learning in reading and 17 days in math.
These results are are remarkable. We want to to make it easier for students to get an education like this. A vital support for charter schools is the federal charter school program. This program ensures that charter schools
have the capital they need to access facilities and and expand new schools and obtain the technical assistance needed to succeed. Unfortunately, existing CSP code is lengthy, approximately 8,000 words and contains
myriad paperwork requirements. The net effect is increased bureaucracy and making CSB funds harder to access for charter school operators. Representative Orion McKenzie's HR 7082,
the Flex Act, would help fix this problem. This bill premised on a simple idea. Charter schools should be able to focus on what they do best, educating children, not bureaucratic compliance exercises. The bill clarifies that CSP
funds can be used to expand programs within existing charter schools, creates flexibility around which CSP subprogram uh receives funding each year, and slashes red tape that stifles charter school innovation.
The other education bill we're marking up will improve the facilities program or subprogram within CSP. Charter schools often struggle to access uh facilities that they need. For example, unlike charter schools, traditional
public schools can raise money for facilities uh through municipal bonds. Representative Juan Sisammani's bipartisan equitable access to school facilities act HR786 would strengthen the facilities section
of the CSP by simplifying program requirements, opening the program to 23 more states and incentivizing states to adopt policies that support charter school growth so more students can be served. These are straightforward, common sense
reforms to make a good program even better. Neither of these bills authorizes more spending or more federal government government interference, nor do they defund traditional public schools. Instead, these bills make it
easier for charter schools to access more resources and expand to serve more students. Those are worthwhile goals. I'm proud to support the charter school sector and this committee is dedicated to making
sure charter schools can succeed. The third bill we'll consider this morning is HR 4624, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, introduced by Representative I think that's the bell. The round is done, right?
Perfect timing. >> Perfect timing. Introduced by Representative Brian Jack. This bipartisan bill would create an alternative system in boxing by permitting the formation of unified boxing organizations or UBOS's alongside
the sports existing sanctioning bodies, giving fighters more choice in how they can compete. For boxers fighting within UBOS, the bill would strengthen their health and safety protections. This bill also extends additional safety and wage
protections for all boxers regardless of whether they fight inside or outside of a UBO. In short, the bill is designed to give boxers more options, better pay, and stronger safety protections while encouraging the growth and modernization
of this historic sport. These bills are key to ensuring that students have access to the education they need and that boxers have improved protections and support as they pursue their careers. The committee is steadfast in protecting students and
workers. And we will do everything in our power to ensure everyone has a fair chance to at to succeed in both school and career. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr.
Chairman, this week the Joint Economic Committee released a new report finding that in the years since President Trump returned to office, families spent an average of $1625 more due to inflation. Despite this troubling fact, today we're
marking up three bills that have nothing to do that do nothing to lower the cost of living. We start with HR 7082, the Fostering Learning and Excellence in Charter Schools Act. The bill first the
um current law sets clear objectives for charter schools. 65% of the funds go to state entities including state education departments, state charter school authorizing awards and others to support the startups replication or expansion of
highquality charter schools through subgrants to charter developers with oversight provisions built to built in to protect students and taxpayers. However, this bill redirects the focus of the program reducing the fund
reducing those funds but to 30%. At the same time, it broadens allowable uses such as adding or expanding curricular or other offerings and new academic programs or delivery models without defining those terms or what
they mean. Meanwhile, the rem remaining 35% of the funds can be distributed to charter school programs at the uh at the secretary's discretion. This would allow for potential significant increase in charter
management organizations, meaning more money for larger, more established management organizations and less money for new charter developers and ideas and less money that goes to actual schools for students and teachers. It reduces the funding for technical assistance,
dissemination of best practices and evaluations while watering down what remains for other allowable uses including facilities and planning. Weakens the transparency and oversight by limiting interim reviews, reports, and peer review of subgrant applications
to state entities. Charter schools already closed at a high far at a far higher rate than traditional public schools and audits have documented waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead of addressing the issues we know exist in the charter school system,
this bill seeks to increase funding for charter school management organizations while reducing transparency and accountability. That's not flexibility, it's just negligence. The um next bill we will deal with is
7086, the equitable access to school facilities act. Current law already supports charter facilities through credit enhancement through per pupil aid. This bill will expand the role of state entities to assist in locating and
in accessing charter school facilities. It would also expand allowable uses of funds by charter school developers to include repairs, renovations, and building out of charter school facilities, though does not define that
term to ensure the building code compliance. It narrows the reporting requirements under the credit enhancement grants by capping the number of years for which reports must be submitted, thereby reducing transparency and accountability.
Most notably, it re it replaces the per pupil aid facilities program with a new state facilities aid program that lacks evaluation or oversight and establishes priorities that favor states that are already more charter friendly and more charter facilities friendly, effectively
ensuring that the number of charter schools will will continue to grow quickly in those states. I can't help but find that troublesome because it waves current accountability rules and creates new a new expansive program
without mechanisms to ensure that there will be effective measures to prevent misuse. If facilities are truly a priority, accountability should increase, not disappear. Finally, the
committee will consider HR 4624, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act. I want to begin by acknowledging the good faith conversations we've engaged with from staff to staff. While some progress has been made in a short
time, we were able we were unable to reach a total agreement largely because of the needless rush to mark up the bill today. This program allows for a new kind of business model in boxing called a unified boxing organization. But the
UBO as it's called does not have the play does not have to play by the same rules as those currently in the sport. For example, current law protects boxer boxers from exploitation separating promoters, sanctioning body bodies and managers and promoting and
prohibiting coerc coercive contracts. These same protections do not currently apply to the UVOS's. Understand that amendments may be offered to fix the remaining big deficiencies in the bill and I urge my colleagues to support those amendments.
Finally, finally, Mr. Chairman, I would note that while committee Republicans rush to prioritize this boxing bill as the very first labor bill we're considering in 2026, they have regrettably not shown the same urgency in this Congress when it comes to
considering labor bills that might raise wages for workers or make life more affordable or make working conditions safer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. >> I thank the gentleman. Um, without
objection, all other members who wish to insert written opening statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. Pursuant to House rules, a copy of the text to be marked up was made available
to members and the public at least 24 hours in advance. The bills being marked up today shall be open to amendment at any point and the chair will allow members to offer amendments in a manner not prohibited by house or committee rules. Without objection, members who
have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their amendments on block may do so. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR782 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are
available. The clerk shall designate the bill >> HR7082, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in order to provide for greater flexibility in the federal programs supporting the planning and implementation of charter schools.
>> Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative McKenzie,
for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR7082 offered by Mr. from Mackenzie,
Pennsylvania identifier HR7082_s. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. McKenzie for five minutes to explain the
amendment in nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR782, the Fostering Learning and Excellence in Charter Schools Act or the Flex Act. For decades, the federal charter school
program or CSP has played an essential role in establishing highquality public charter schools across the country. Nearly half of charter schools currently operating have relied on this program at some point. At the same time, there is room for improvement within the program.
Burdensome requirements and outdated rules are limiting the freedom and flexibility that help to make so many charter schools effective. By limiting schools from accessing funding or responding to the needs of students and families, these rules are limiting some
charter schools and their students from achieving their full potential. My legislation, the Flex Act, makes targeted changes to the existing CSP to provide greater flexibility in how those funds are used. Specifically, the Flex Act allows CSP funds to be used to
expand programs at existing charter schools so more students can enroll and benefit in communities like mine in the Lehi Valley and Poconos. This can help to empower existing schools that have a proven track record of achieving results
for students. The bill also clarifies the funds may be used for sustaining operational costs across the life of a grant, reducing confusion and unnecessary bureaucracy for schools. Furthermore, it creates flexibility so funds can be directed to the CSP
subprograms where demand is greatest rather than being locked into fixed allocations that may not reflect the real needs on the ground. The ANS makes additional changes such as ensuring that state entities can distribute those funds upfront rather than on the
reimbursement basis and it allows up to 15% of national activities funds under CSP to go to charter school developers in states that need more education options. This legislation does not authorize new funding. It simply modernizes an existing federal program
so resources can reach students and classrooms more efficiently. I urge my colleagues for their support of this legislation. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in
the nature of the substitute? Um, does a gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, seek to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. I move strike the last word to >> you're recognized for your five minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I uh speak in opposition to this legislation because it weakens
accountability in a federal program that has already struggled with with oversight and it does so under the banner of flexibility without grappling with the real consequences. The charter schools program was created to support
highquality public charter schools. Uh that that serves students well and use taxpayer dollars responsibly. It was never intended to be a blank check. And it was never meant to operate without meaningful planning, transparency, and
safeguards. This bill moves us away from that responsibility. It reduces planning requirements. It loosens sustainability expectations and it expands discretion at the department without strengthening the guard rails that protect students
and communities when things go wrong. And we know what happens when those guardrails are weak. We've seen federally funded charter schools that that never opened. Schools that shut down abruptly, leaving families scrambling midyear. schools that that
funneled public dollars into related party contracts and millions of federal dollars that were never recovered. Those failures did not happen because the rules were too strict. They happened because the rules were too loose. Yet,
this bill does not address those lessons. And it does not require stronger authorizers oversight. It does not improve financial transparency. It does not require clearer reporting to parents and it does not address the
persistent problem of segregation and exclusion in some charter expansion efforts. Instead, it asks us to believe that that few requirements will somehow lead to better outcomes. But but flexibility without accountability is is
not innovation. It is risk. And that risk is borne by students and families and taxpayers. And we do not take this approach in in in other federal education programs. Community colleges are expected to demonstrate fiscal
responsibilities. Public school districts must meet planning and and reporting standards. Institutions that receive federal aid must show that they are prepared to serve students over time. Charter schools receiving federal
dollars should be no different. This bill lowers the bar at a moment when families are demanding more transparencies uh not not less, more stability, not uncertainty, and more accountability for how public dollars
are spent. So, if this legislation paired flexibility with stronger oversight, stronger reporting, clearer protections for students, and we could have a serious conversation about improvements. But, as written, it tilts
the program further away from accountability and towards preventable failure. For those reasons, Mr. Chair, I I oppose this bill and I'll be voting against it. Thank you. >> I yield back. I thank the gentle lady.
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to be recognized? >> Yes, M. Mr. Chairman, I do. Mr. Thompson, you're recognized for five minutes. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, a vital support for charter schools is the uh the federal charter school program. And u and I want to
thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this bill. Uh unfortunately the CSP statute is is I mean it's lengthy uh layered with paperwork requirements and and just results more bureaucracy and a harder path for charter school operators
seeking support. And Mr. McKenzie's Flex Act clarifies that CSP funds can be used to expand programs within existing charter schools. Creates flexibility around which CSP subprogram receives funding each year. um slashes red tape
that stifles charter school innovation. The bill does not authorize more spending or more federal government interference and it does not defund traditional public schools. This bill is grounded in a simple premise. Charter schools should be able to focus on what they do best, educating children, not
navigating compliance exercises. Uh HR782 maintains appropriate safeguards while making it easier for children to get the education they need. With thousands of students on charter school waiting list nationwide, students need options and this bill will help meet
that demand. Uh I strongly support this bill. Urge my colleagues to u uh vote in favor and I yield the balance of my time the remaining time to Mr. McKenzie. >> Thank you uh to the chairman of the agricultural committee and my colleague
from Pennsylvania for those kind words. Uh I would just like to stress again the importance of this legislation is exactly in response to what we just heard from a previous commenter. The challenges with the current program are that funds are not being directed in the
most effective and efficient way possible. And so this legislation actually corrects those problems. That's why we have this legislation before us, so that the monies that are going out from the federal government are going to the most effective charter schools, whether they're an existing program or a
new program. The funds can now be in a competitive process with the most options out there, the most schools competing, and let the best opportunities for children and students be the ones to rise to the top and get this grant funding. And so, I think it is a a great way to actually reform the
system, address many of the problems that were rightly addressed. That's what we're trying to fix. We're trying to make sure that monies only go for these charter school programs again where they're going to be put to their best use for children and families all across our country. And so again, uh I would encourage a yes vote. Uh and the the
opposition that we hear just doesn't hold water here. Uh so I would encourage a yes vote. With that, I yield my time. Thank you. >> Does a gentleman from concern to yield back? >> I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Does the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonabichi, seek
to speak to this amendment? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill in the recognized. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the sponsor said there's room for improvement, and I don't disagree with that, but this bill would open the door for more waste, fraud, and abuse in charter schools by eliminating reporting
requirements and oversight mechanisms previously established by Congress. HR7082 unnecessarily focuses on the expansion of charter management organizations, many of which could be for-profit entities, into new geographic areas,
including states with limited charter school options, which it seems like an odd priority for colleagues who constantly say they want education decisions made by states. And as I've said before, the challenges in our education system are not caused by a lack of schools, but by a lack of
equitable and adequate support for students in the schools we already have. If our shared goal is to create the best educational opportunities for all students, let's focus on grant programs and policies that fund evidence-based improvements in all of our schools,
including our traditional public schools, not blank checks for management organizations. again, many of which are accountable to shareholders instead of students and families. My Republican colleagues have cited charter school enrollment increases as justification for this bill. I question how many of
how much of any of this growth in enrollment can be attributed to virtual and online charter schools which create significant equity issues regarding access and importantly have consistently shown abysmal academic outcomes for their students. and I will be later
offering an amendment to limit funds under this bill uh so that they don't go to these uh abysmal uh online charter schools. And additionally, although my colleagues tout enrollment increases, I would like to note that more than a quarter of all charter schools close
within five years of opening, often after receiving a lot of federal funding, and fewer than half of all charter schools make it to 20 years of operation. These closers closures are most commonly a result of either low enrollment or fraud and mismanagement
which directly contradict the majority's rationale for promoting this bill. I do support giving families a choice in their children's educational experiences, but the best way to do that is fairly with more magnet school options within our public school system. Funneling taxpayer money into charter
management organizations without meaningful transparency and accountability requirements for how that money is spent is deeply irresponsible and actually risks harming students, especially our most vulnerable students. I also want to note that this bill would completely remove the current
requirement that the secretary conduct interim reviews of grants to confirm that the funding is being used appropriately. It's a little baffling. I'm not sure if that's because they're afraid of accountability or they don't want there to be a secretary of education, but the bottom line is that we need more oversight, not less. I
encourage the majority to hold future hearings and markups on bills that would actually strengthen and protect our entire public school system, including the Rebuild America's Schools Act, the American Teacher Act, the IDA Full Funding Act, my arts education for all act, which is bipartisan, and the Safe
Schools Improvement Act. Uh thank you, Mr. chairman and I yel back. >> I thank the gentle lady. There's a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member wish to be recognized. >> You're recognized. >> Mr. Fines. Mr. Fines.
>> Oh, >> does the gentle does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, seek to be recognized? >> I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> You're recognized for your five minutes. >> Thank you. And I just want to speak in in favor of the bill and speak to the nature of charter schools. In Florida,
we have about 400,000 students who attend charter schools. That's about 10% of the overall total. And about 13% of students who attend school in Florida attend a charter school. And I spent my eight years in the legislature working on education. I chaired K12 education
for two years. I toured many of these charter schools. And what I found is the vast majority of them opened in response to the failure of a government-run school to meet the needs of the students. Now, lots of people talk about the fact that some charter schools open
and then they close. That is because they are accountable. Governmentrun schools never seem to close. No matter how poorly they perform, no matter how how much the students that go there at suffer, the answer always seems to be throw money at a failing solution.
Charter schools have operated in Florida, particularly in some of our lowest income neighborhoods with some of our students who need the assistance the most. But they are public schools and if a parent does not like the education that their child is getting, they can take them home. The fact that the
federal government has a role to play to help these charter schools, frankly, many of which are not on the same playing field. They we say they are public schools, but they do not get the same funding as a traditional government school. often the per student funding is lower and certainly the capital available to build those schools is
lower. So these schools already operate at a substantial disadvantage to their governmentrun counterparts. This bill takes a relatively small program but makes it easier and simpler for states to participate in it as we give those students the opportunity to get the best
education for them. 10% of those kids in 10% in Florida, 13% overall. A number that is growing every year. I have met with parents who have been desperate to get their kids into some of these charter schools who ask me, "What can I
do because the government school can't meet the needs of my child?" These schools are generally lower income, more minority-based, not because they are forced there, but because their parents are desperate for them to go there. So, I appreciate Representative McKenzie
bringing this bill forward. I appreciate the committee for making it a priority, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support the bill. And with that, I yield back. I thank the gentleman. I now recognized the uh ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for his five minutes. >> Thank you, M. Mr. Speaker. I have
significant concerns about this bill. The current law sets clear objectives for for the charter schools program, CSP. 65% of the funds go to state entities. That's state educational agencies, state governors, charter school authorizing boards or charter
school support organizations to support the startups replication or expansion of highquality charter schools through subgrants to charter developers. 12 and a half% of the funds allocated to various methods of facility financing
assistance for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of facilities. And the final 22.5% is allocated to national activities which include opening, replication, and expansion by charter management organizations, grants to developers in
states without a charter entity, and dissemination and evaluation grants. This bill significantly alters the amounts reserved for each of those categories. Most significantly, it reduces the state entity grants from 65%
to 35% and provides the US Secretary of Education with discretion to reallocate that 35%. This flexibility about how charter school f funding can be spent is substantial change from CSP's authorizing language potentially
reducing by more than half where the bulk of the CSP funding has gone in the past and therefore changing the focus of CSP. In effect, he would permit the US secretary more than triple the amount of funds used for civility financing
assistance and more than double the amount used for national activities rather than use those funds for state entity grants which traditionally work their way down to the developers schools and students. This represents a potential potentially significant
increase to charter management organizations. This means more money for the larger, more established management organizations and less money for new charter developers and ideas and less money that goes to actual schools for students and teachers. Moreover, the
bill ignores reports of fraud, waste, and abuse. Over the past few years, the 2016 audit by the Office of Inspector General in the US Department of Education, the OIG and Department of Education concluded that charter school relationships with charter management
organizations lacked internal controls and oversight that led to conflicts of interest and insufficient uh segregation of duties and party related transactions and included risks of lack of accountability of federal funds, risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. abuse and risk
that schools are not providing school students with the services required by the federal programs. Additionally, a 2022 OIG report found that for CSP funds distributed between 2013 and 2016 grantees, including management
organizations opened or expanded, only 51% of the schools promised and for which they received funding. More recently, the 2023 OIG report found that charter management organizations did not always address compliance issues when
the charter schools with highly problematic applications still received millions of dollars from CSP bill. This bill does nothing to address those problems, yet increases the amount of funding that may go to charter management organizations, thereby
increasing the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. bill opens the door for significant and extended uh expenditures by the permitting subgrant funding to be used for hiring and compensation, transportation and other costs throughout the grant program. Bill
allows state entities to use developers application to become a charter school within the state in lie of a subgrant application thereby weakening application requirements when circumventing federal statutory application requirements so long as state laws for becoming a charter are
met. For example, federal law requires that developers describe how they will uh include parent and community input in the charter school. However, if a state does not require this, the application to be a charter school used in lie of an
application for a subgrant, then the requirement is no longer necessary for for for um while far from perfect, the charter schools program does include some oversight provisions built into the law to protect students and taxpayers.
Instead of strengthening these provisions, the bill erodess transparency, accountability, and oversight. For example, it reduces the amount of funds reserved for technical assistance, disseminating best practices, and evaluating the impact of the charter school programs, including
that on student achievement. Then it waters down the impact of the remaining funds for the purposes by for these purposes by expanding what the funds can be used for. The bill also eliminates interim reviews and reports and peer review of grant applications for quality
assurance. So instead of addressing the challenges that we know exist in the charter school system and making improvements to the program to address the needs of students, this bill reduces transparency and accountability and provides flexibility that puts the interests of management organizations
and financial structures first. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. >> I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman from Indiana wish to be recognized? I'll save my uh recognition until the amendment gets filed.
>> I thank the gentleman. There's a gentle lady from Arizona, Mr. Ghalva, seek to be recognized. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> You're recognized. >> Um, one of the things I've heard very clearly is uh this idea that charter
schools need more flexibility. Um, part of the concern that I have is when I served on the school board for 20 years in Tucson Unified, many times at the 40th day, 40th day of funding and the 100th day, students come back to our
schools because many of the charters do not provide funding for special education. And when you look at the 500 students that came back to just in as an example to Tucson Unified um the the majority were special education credit
deficient and English language learners in the school year of uh 2425. The other concern that I have is charter schools don't need more flexibility. They need to be required to follow the rules, the same rules and regulations that our traditional K12 system has.
Charter school sponsors in Arizona have been able to enrich themselves with little accountability or oversight. Many created LLC's when purchasing property and with public dollars and once those schools closed and many of them closed
sooner obviously and has been already stated they sell the property those dollars are pocketed. I have um two documents that I would like to submit for the record. One is lawmaker Eddie Farnsworth, who was an Arizona state senator at the time, nets 13.9 million
in charter school sales. And another charter school founder, um, Mr. Damon Farnsworth, Damon Kramer, I apologize, paid himself and his company over $24 million in dividends and distributions while um, students were failing. And so
what we need to do is speak to >> without objection, they will be entered. Thank you. And one of the things we need to do is speak to the issue that continues to come up in our school systems is that there is no accountability. There is no safeguard.
Once these schools fail our children, they come back to the traditional school system and the time had passed for those schools to be able to net um full year of funding. And so they get daily membership funding and that is not acceptable. It's not okay. And I think
that the regulations for a traditional K12 system should apply here. Um, when we I hear comments that charter schools should do what they do best, educating children, just delete the charter. Our schools need to do need to be able to do what they do best and not be bogged down
by more um bureaucracy. And our charter schools, especially in Arizona, um seem to be thriving under this environment of less accountability. And I'm strongly oppose any um suggestion that we should
um lessen those requirements at this point. And with that, I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized to speak on this amendment? Mr. Owens, >> does a gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens, wish to speak?
>> Thank you. >> Recognized. >> Uh this amendment is very similar to the This is Mr. Mr. Is this Mr. >> Okay. Okay. I yield back. >> I thank the gentlemen. There being no further discussion on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? The gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Banamichi, is recognized to speak on her amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk bi069. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR7082, offered by Miss Bonamichi of Oregon, identifier Bami_069.
Uh, does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and and as I said in my remarks on the uh in
opposition to the ANS, um we need more accountability, not less. Uh, I want to start my my remarks by um expressing some concern about the porative term of of failing government schools. Um, the this u notion that uh government schools
that has roots back in the Jim Crow era of segregation, it's very concerning to hear in this room today. Uh what I I I'm trying to figure out if my colleagues want to have it both way because they're saying that charters are public schools but then they're criticizing what they call failing government schools which is
extremely concerning. We need to focus on the overwhelming as my colleague from Arizona said the overwhelming uh number of students who are in traditional public schools. U but with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we know that state entities get federal funding under
the Charter Schools Program, which is authorized by the Elementary and Secondary A Education Act, and those are funds to eligible entities to support the development, implementation, and replication of highquality charter schools, as well as to provide technical assistance to carry out the state's
charter school program. My amendment attempts to place some guard rails on these taxpayer dollars. We know that virtual charter schools are not doing a good job educating our nation's students. In fact, in 2021, the Washington Post called them the worst
performing schools in the charter sector. And in 2022, a USGO report found that virtual charter schools had significantly lower proficiency rates on state tests compared with other school types. And there are numerous examples of online charter schools and their
dismal results. The GAO report also found that virtual charter schools pose increased financial risks for both state and federal funds. And despite this, there has been an increase in virtual charter school enrollment since the start of the CO 19 pandemic. Of course,
there's a space for online learning in some circumstances, but entire virtual charter schools are extremely problematic. I dealt with this in the state legislature. Uh it was extremely concern. The equity issues are concerning. The results are very concerning. Uh so to guarantee the
responsible use of limited federal education dollars, my amendment prohibits state entities from using any charter school grant funds it receives for virtual charter schools. This is just one step toward creating more transparency and accountability in the charter school program and providing
equality education to all children attending all public schools. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. This gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order. Uh the reservation is withdrawn. Does
anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from Indiana. Do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes. Thank you, chairman. Uh I appreciate my colleagues amendment, but it has several fundamental flaws. Most significantly, it create it creates a bank blanket ban on promising technology
instead of taking a targeted approach to preserve the benefits of virtual schooling while curbing potential downsides. All online education is not the same. During the pandemic, many families turned to homeschooling, virtual tu tutoring, and online resources when Democrat-led crackdowns
kept schools closed for years on end. In that situation, traditional schools had to pivot quickly to online schooling, never having done that previously. And parents need educational options. They need options in case Democrat politicians try to shut down schools again. Parents also need options if no
high-quality school is located near their home. And parents need options if their child's the child does not thrive in an in-person environment. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Uh
for what purposes? A gentleman from Virginia, ranking member. Motive strength, last word. >> You are recognized. >> Thank you. Very briefly, just to emphasize the points that were made, the rates, when you look at rates of graduation, dropping out in college
enrollment, these virtual schools do worse. There's no point in uh using precious federal funds to fund such organizations and they should be prohibited as this amendment does. And I would support the amendment. Yield back the balance.
>> The gentleman yields. Does gentleman from Florida seek recognition? >> I do, Mr. >> Recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, we heard something that I thought was quite offensive. The notion that my use of the term failing government schools somehow
evoked something out of Jim Crow. Um, I went I'd never heard that before despite having worked in education policy for 10 years. So, I went and used the old Google and the Grock and I couldn't find any mention of that term being used in that time period. But I do want to talk about failing government schools because
a government school is a school run by the government. And the reason it is an important term to use is because not all public schools are operated by the government. It's not a porative term. It is a factual term. But here is something that is porative. In in the city of
Baltimore, there are 13 government schools in which not a single student is proficient in math. They are failing government schools. In Minnesota, there are 19 government-run schools where not
a single student is proficient in math. That is a failing government school. And in Illinois, in schools where they spend up to $35,000 a year per student, there are 80 schools where not a single student is proficient
in math. Those are failing government schools. And I would hypothesize that in the vast majority of those schools, they are overwhelmingly minority students that are being failed by their government. Virtual charter schools offer school choice to those who live in
rural areas. I often dealt as I expanded school choice in Florida from my rural colleagues who said school choice is a fiction. It's an artifice of people who live in cities who people who live in suburbs. But in my small rural county, we're lucky to be able to fill up one
school. How can we have multiple bricks and mortar schools? What virtual schools allow is those rural communities to have options that the cities and the and the suburbs may have. All schools can have problems. But I think I talked about
over 100 failing government schools that have much bigger problems. The solution to this is not to lock people in these kinds of schools. It is to give them the choice so they can escape their failing government schools. Virtual schools are simply one such option and that's why
opposing this amendment is so important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Does anyone else seek to speak on this amendment? I I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be in
opposition to this amendment for the simple fact that it is an effort to maintain the status quo. We have seen parents and families all across this country rise up and use their voices to speak for change in their local educational opportunities. And what we
have seen is great amounts of innovation come into this space. And we have seen during the COVID and after the COVID pandemic that when these educational opportunities arose online, what public schools, traditional public schools did in response was they innovated. They
found ways to push back and come up with their own online educational opportunities, increasing flexibility, increasing opportunities for students all across this country. Without that competition, those changes would have never occurred. And so again, what this amendment does, it is another roadblock
to parent and educational choice and it is an effort to maintain the status quo that so many people are looking for changes and new opportunities. So I would ask for a no vote on this amendment and with that I yield back to the chairman. Thank you. I thank the gentlemen. Are there any
others who wish to speak on this amendment, the Banamichi amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Banamichi. All in favor say I. I.
>> All oppose, no. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any
further amendments to the amendment and a nature of a substitute to HR 7082? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. Uh for purposes of an amendment, >> chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Scott VA 5051.
>> The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR7082 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier SEO Tva_051. >> I reserve point of order. >> The gentleman from Utah reserves a point
of order. I now recognize the gentle lady from Oregon. >> Or excuse me. Uh I I recognize gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member for five minutes to speak on his amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply require that state entities include an assessment of racial segregation in any community in which a proposed charter school will be located, a strategy of how the proposed charter school will effectively address
desegregation in the community, and an assurance that that strategy will be carried out. The Civil Rights Project first found in 2003 that charter schools were more segregated than traditional public schools. Findings that were confirmed again in 2010 and 2024. According to the
last report, in 2024, segregation in suburban charter schools is increasing such that in 2019, approximately 27% of the suburban charter schools are comprised of 90 to 100% black and
Hispanic students. In the new charter charter schools located in the subur suburbs of the top 25 metro areas, students of color were disproportionately represented with 44% uh Hispanic students and 26% white
students. Segregation of Asian students is also increased. Moreover, many charter schools are segregated by more than one factor such as race, socioeconomic status, class, and English language learners. And public schools, according to the GAO, are more
segregated today than at any time since the late 1960s. Segregation of students by race and income has dramatically increased over the past two decades. The share of K through2 public schools that were high poverty and comprised of mostly black and Hispanic students nearly doubled
between 2000 and 2013. Segregated schools mean segregated opportunities. We've known that since 1954. We've acknowledged that since 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Meanwhile, school desegregation has proven to be proven to
close achievement gaps and produce lifelong benefits by providing students of color access to the same resources as other students. Most rigorous report to date on school integration showed that black students who attended desegregated schools throughout their K through2
career were more likely to graduate from high school, attend college, and attend more selective colleges and complete colleges. Uh benefit is not merely limited to academics. Just five years of attending a court-ordered desegregation school
significantly increased black workers earnings and significantly reduce their likelihood of experiencing poverty. School desegregation brings us one step closer to fulfilling the promise of Brown v Board of Education and the federal government should support these efforts in all public schools, including
charter schools. All students should be provided with a with a quality public education that enables them to reach their full potential. And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> Go back. >> The gentleman yields.
Does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve point of order? >> Yes, I'd like to reserve point of order. >> Um would you wish to withdraw? >> Sorry. I'd like to withdraw my my point of order. >> We'll give you what you want. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh does gentleman wish to speak on the amendment?
>> I do. >> Thank you so much. >> Gentleman from Utah is recognized. >> Uh this amendment is very similar to the amendment Mr. Scott uh proposed during the summer's markup empower charter schools educa educator educators to lead. I will repeat the same arguments I
made at that point. Uh reg uh racial segregation is wrong. It's illegal under the civil rights act. It's immoral. It violates fundamental American values of fairness, equal opportunity, and equality before the law. If minority students choose a public charter school,
racial diversity is in any given school may increase or decrease. But that's not an example of legally mandating segregation. Instead, it's an example of parents, regardless of their race, seeking out the very best education option for their kids. And I just want to uh add on to what Mr. fin said
earlier uh of all the things that we just mentioned how kids are leaving or parents want to leave failing schools just go back to California who's done this the regulations very very well 2017 75% of the black boys could not read and write and I'm sure many of these parents
who love their kids would have loved to have the choice of going to a public charter school uh according to the Stanford University study u uh the students in poverty achieve in charter schools additional 23 3 days of learning
and reading and 17 days in math. Um, many charter schools have narrowed the achievement gap between black and white students. 7% of charter schools even reverse the achievement gap with black students performing equally or better than white students.
The question is why is it this public schools uh is is being attacked or or put down uh by by my my Democratic friends. It's because it is successful. It gives a choice to leave terrible, terrible uh uh public uh public public schools to ones that gives them more of
an option. The charter school sector does not need more red tape. It needs less one more way to encourage the creation of more charter schools and to help more minority students to make it easier not harder for charter schools to expand. Uh with that, I urge my
colleagues to vote against this amendment in favor underlining bill. I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Does anyone else seek recognition? The gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams. Do you wish to speak on the amendment? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> You're recognized. >> Thank you very much. I'd like to strike
the last word in support of the ranking members amendment. Uh this amendment is is reasonable, limited, and and long overdue. It asked charter school applicants seeking federal funds to do something very basic to understand the communities they're entering to assess
existing partners patterns of of uh segregation and to explain how their proposed school will contribute to access and inclusion rather than deepen divides. This is not a mandate. This is not federal micromanagement and it's not
an attack on charter schools. It's it's reasonable stewardship of federal dollars. We know and the evidence is clear that charter expansion can have very different impacts uh depending on how it is designed. Some schools broaden
access, some unintentionally exacerbate segregation by race, income, or disability, ignoring that reality does not make it go away. This amendment does not presume uh bad intent. It does not require a specific outcome and it does
not tell schools who to enroll or how to operate. It simply requires transparency and intentionality before federal dollars are awarded. If an applicant believes their school will serve students equitably, explaining how
schools h how how should not uh how should not be be a burdensome. If a school has a strategy to promote diversity and access, then this amendment gives them space to articulate it. And if an applicant has not
considered these issues at all, that is precisely why Congress should pause before investing taxpayer funds. Federal education policy should not be blind to content. It should not reward expansion
without understanding impact. and it should not pretend that segregation is someone else's problem. This amendment strengthens the charter schools program uh by aligning it with long-standing civil rights principles and common sense
planning. It helps ensure that public dollars expand opportunity rather than narrow it. And it restores balance to to a bill that otherwise weakens oversight without addressing past failures. Supporting this amendment is not uh
anti-charter. It's pro- studentent. It's pro- community and it's pro- accountability. I urge my colleagues to support the Scott amendment. And Mr. Chairman, I I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. Does anyone else seek recognition? Uh for what
purposes? The gentle lady from Oregon seek to be recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to speak in favor of the ranking members. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to speak in favor of the ranking members amendment which is is critically important. Um but I also want to remind
this committee um that when we talk about our public school system most of the people in this much of the most of the students in this country go to traditional public schools which some of my colleagues are calling failing public schools or failing government schools.
Uh when we look at the percentage of parents who are saying we need help, we want a a choice to put our student in another program. Uh we also cannot turn away from the overwhelming majority who are in traditional public schools. I
don't think the term failing public school makes sense. A school is a building. If students aren't doing well in that school, we need to ask as policy makers here on the education committee, why are they not doing well? Are they hungry? Are they homeless? Are they
afraid of gun violence? Do they need more projectbased learning? Do they need smaller classes? Do they need a broader curriculum? Let's ask those questions before we focus only on the involved families who say, "I want a better option for my student." We should be
caring about all of the students in this country, not just those with the involved parents who say, "I want to make things better." And I'll just note, uh, Mr. chairman that as a public school parent for years and years and years, I did what I could to make it better uh for all students, not just my own
children. And that's the approach that we should take on all of the students. Instead of talking about failing public schools, we should ask what support those students need, what changes do we need to make for all of the students so they can all do well. But in the meantime, I do support Mr. Scott's
amendment and I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. For what purposes, gentleman from Pennsylvania seek to be recognized? >> Uh to speak on the amendment, Mr. Chairman. >> The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
McKenzie, is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I find this amendment to be wholly unnecessary based on current federal law that already does what uh the maker of this amendment is seeking to do. So just simply unnecessary, redundant uh to those other
parts of statute. And so I would encourage a no vote. But I would also like to speak to what is going on in our local school district uh that is in a majority minority city where the English proficiency is 17% at the traditional
public school. The math proficiency is 10.5% and the graduation rate is 77%. Those students, those minority students are opting to go to a local charter school, but there is a wait list that is holding them back from more opportunities where they can go to a
school district that has higher English and math proficiencies and a 95% graduation rate. That is what we want for all students, not just minority students, but all students. And so doing anything to say that this is in some way
uh disadvantaging our minority students is the exact opposite of what is going on. Uh we would like more flexibility to expand an existing program like that to give more opportunity to all students including the minority students in that school district. So again I would encourage a no vote on this unnecessary
amendment. And with that I yield back to the chairman. >> I thank the gentleman. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the Scott amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott.
All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose, no. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. An amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further
amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7082? Uh for what purposes a gentleman from Virginia seek to be recognized? >> Have an amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the desk to designated GAO1.
>> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR7082 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott Gao_01. Does a gentleman from Utah reserve >> reserve? Point of order.
>> A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman, Mr. Scott from Virginia, the ranking member for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require the GAO to conduct a study on charter schools and educational disparities of
underrepresented students compared with their spear peers as well as charter charter schools treatment of underrepresented students. While they're certainly highquality charter schools, it's imperative that we address the concerns and issues that have surrounded
many charter schools for decades, including whether charter schools meet the academic outcomes of students on par with traditional public schools, whe including reports that charter schools are more segregated than traditional public schools, most recently for
suburban black, Asian, and Hispanic students. reports that charter schools often utilize harsher punishments uh than traditional public schools and p and black students and students with disabilities are disproportionately
punished. The fact that charter schools are not bound to hire only certified teachers the way that public schools are and therefore students at charter schools may be taught by less experienced and less qualified teachers than those at traditional public
schools. and data showing that enrollment of students with disabilities in charter schools consistently lags behind traditional public schools and once enrolled students with disabilities are pushed out of charter schools at a higher rate than their non-disabled
peers. Public schools need to serve all students so that they can succeed in life and identifying disparities and discrimination within the charter system will help address the problems so we can find solutions. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.
>> I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman from Utah >> like to withdraw my point of order? >> Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment by Mr. Scott? Uh does the gentleman, Mr. McKenzie from
Pennsylvania, wish to speak on the amendment? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CSP already requires extensive evaluations and reporting on student performance. And while the details of reporting requirements vary by subprogram, raising
achievement for student subgroups is already a focus of this program. For instance, the term highquality charter school is defined in existing law as among other things, a school that has quote demonstrated success in increasing
student achievement, including graduation rates where applicable for each of the subgroups of students. In other words, to be considered a highquality charter school under the CSP, a charter must increase performance for each subgroup, not just for students
in general and not just for one or two of the subgroups. So, finally, establishing uh something like this is already done. Uh and so I think the amendment is unnecessary. It wouldn't help achieve the goal. It would just create more studies and reporting uh
which there is ample evidence and information out there available. And again, we are looking to make sure that the funds that go out through the federal government go to those schools that are the highest achieving highquality charter schools. This legislation will be able to most directly steer that money to those
programs. This amendment is unnecessary. And so for those reasons, I would encourage a no vote on this amendment. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Thank you. Are there any others who seek recognition on this Scott amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it.
A roll call is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7082? Seeing none, further action on HR782 is
postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of HR786 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the
bill. HR7086, a bill to support the creation and implementation of state policies as well as the expansion of existing state policies for improving the quality and affordability of charter school facilities and to authorize the provision of technical assistance to
support the growth and expansion of highquality charter schools. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And any
amendment offered shall be considered as read. Keep going. Keep going. >> I uh call for suspending for a minute. to bring us back to where we were before we spend suspended uh without objection
the first reading of this bill HR 7086. um is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized?
Representative Kylie. Uh for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR7086 offered by Mr. Kylie of California
identifier HR7086_s >> without objection the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment the amendment and a nature of a substitute has already been distributed I now recognize Mr. Kylie for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute
>> thank you Mr. Chairman, the equitable access to school facilities act makes targeted improvements to the state charter school facilities incentive grant program. Charter schools often lack access to the same facilities financing tools available to traditional public schools and many states and
schools are unable to participate in this program as it is. This bill simplifies the state match requirement to a flat 40%. Opens eligibility to additional states by expanding beyond per pupil uh charter facilities aid programs and clearly outlines the
information required in grant applications so states know exactly what is expect is expected. Charter schools play an important role in expanding educational opportunity. As mentioned at the beginning of this hearing, research from Stamford's Credo uh center show
that charter students on average gain the equivalent of six additional days of learning per year in math and 16 additional days in reading reading with even greater gains for students in poverty. Yet despite this success, charter schools frequently struggle to
access adequate facilities. By removing unnecessary barriers and expanding eligibility to approximately 23 additional states, this bill helps ensure more charter schools can access facilities funding and better serve students and families. This amendment in
the nature of a substitute makes a technical adjustment to asssure the table of contents in the underlying elementary and secondary education act is appropriately updated and clarifies that grantees may access the revolving loan fund for the duration of their grant, not just for the first two years of the grant. This legislation does not
create a new program, does not increase federal spending, and does not invite federal micromanagement of charter schools. Instead, it strengthens an existing program so it works as Congress intended. With many families facing long waiting lists for charter schools, this
bill takes a practical step to support highquality schools and expand opportunity. I adur I urge adoption of the amendment and support for the underlying bill and yield back the remainder of my time. >> I thank the gentleman. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and
the nature of substitute? Does the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, wish to be recognized? >> You are recognized. >> Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about this bill. It reduces the amount of funding available to state entities for opening
and replicating or expanding highquality charter schools in order to allow funds to be used for continued operations or obtaining, renovating, or rehabilitating facilities through a revolving loan fund. Simultaneously, the bill expands
the role of state entities to assist in locating and in accessing facilities for charter schools as well as providing assistance to a future or current charter school to bring its facility into compliance with state and local building codes. It'll also allows
expands allowable uses of funds by charter developers to include repairs, renovations, and building out of charter school facilities. It's unclear what building out means. The bill narrows reporting requirements under the credit
enhancement grants which are used to leverage private financing by capping the number of years that a grantee must submit annual reports. This will reduce transparency and oversight. The bill eliminates the per pupil facilities aid program and replaces it with a new state
facilities aid program. New program provides funding to state entities with aid to aid charter school facilities. However, the allowable uses of the funds are much broader than under current law. Under the new grant program, grants can be used to fund or create financing for
acquiring, leasing, or renovating facilities as well as ongoing facilities costs. ones under the new program can also be shifted and used to establish, maintain or supplement a reserve account under the credit enhancement program.
The federal share of the state facilities aid program remains a constant 60% for the duration of the grant providing no incentive to the state entities to increase their self-sufficiency. In addition, the new the non-federal share of the grant may be funded in hold
or in part by one or more other organizations with no specifications on the types of these organizations. The new state facilities aid program establishes priorities where none exist under current law. These priorities favor states that are already more
charter friendly and more charter facilities friendly, thereby effectively ensuring that the number of charter schools will continue to grow in more quickly in those states. What is most concerning is that there is no oversight or evaluation requirement to determine
how the program is working or the effects of the program. While the charter schools do face challenges in locating and accessing facilities, funding to assist their facilities needs should not come at the expense of transparency, accountability, and
oversight. For those reasons, M. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill and yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Uh the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Thompson. Do you wish be recognized? >> Yes, chairman. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Chairman. Uh you know, every student deserves a high quality education that prepares that student for success later in life and and among those pathways to uh that can lead to
that is charter schools. Uh they they provide these opportunities. We've heard from uh Mr. Kylie about um you know Stanford Center of Research uh the outcomes that they have seen uh of average uh um improvements in learning
um and the gains are even stronger for at risk students. Students in poverty uh according to the study achieve an additional 23 days of learning and reading and 17 days in math. And for many families, charter schools offer a vital pathway to a better education. Uh
unfortunately, charter schools often struggle to access facilities that they need. Uh traditional public schools can raise money for facilities through municipal bonds. Uh unlike charter schools, charter schools may also be denied access to public buildings and often lack local funding options for for
school construction and and renovation. And that's why the the federal charter school program is so important. Uh, Representative Sismani's uh, bipartisan equitable access to school facilities act HR786 strengthens CSP facilities section by
simplifying the program requirements, opening the program up to 23 more states and incentivizing states to adopt policies that support charter schools. This bill does not create a new program or new spending. It does not invite federal micromanagement of charter
schools as we've heard previously and it does not defund traditional public schools. Instead, the bill just simply removes barriers so more charter schools can access facilities and serve more students. And with thousands of students on charter school waiting lists
nationwide, uh the demand is there and we should do everything that we can to support the growth of of new highquality charter schools. I strongly support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Uh are there any
other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer
amendments? Does the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross, seek to be recognized? >> Yes, I have an amendment at the desk. Uh, >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR7086 offered by Mr. Norcross of New Jersey,
identifier N_035. >> This is a gentleman from Utah. >> I reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross, for 5 minutes. in support of his amendment. >> Thank you chairman and ranking member
for having this discussion. I think one item that we can all agree upon particularly the focus of this committee is education opens doors for that next generation. I was lucky enough as a
young man to be an apprentice electrician. Worked my way through and something that we certainly know is education is more than just college. It's what you can do to give yourself a career. And that's why I think the
amendment that I have introduced is so important. Very simply, this applies Davis Bacon prevailing wage to all construction projects funded in part or in hold by this charter school program, including the credit enhancement grants,
uh, which is part of the new state facilities aid program. We've done the the granting of this for the years now, but in particular the last two cycles, and we're about to have appropriate another 500 million into this year's uh
or next year's 2026 that hopefully we're voting on uh very shortly. Of this, the charter school program is approximately 62.5 million. And this is what we want to talk about to put Davis Bacon and to remind people who might not have been
here all that long is Davis Bacon was an initiative by Republican Senator James Davis of Pennsylvania and a Republican Congressman Robert Bacon of New York and it was signed into law by a Republican President Herbert Hoover in 1931. And
this has been the bedrock of making sure that that next generation in construction will be there will be there with the skill sets that they need because what Davis Bacon does is take an assessment of regional wages and
benefits. I want to repeat that this is regional and sets up a prevailing wage. Most people are aware of it. But it is so important as we talk here of not able to attract that next generation whether it was to ship building or generally
those jobs that were outside that are sometimes hot cold all the difficulties. We as a country have had some issues attracting. What better way to continue to attract that is to make sure that there's a level playing field across the
country and we are raising the standards for that next generation. I think this is a common sense bill that I believe we all can work with. We've done it before since 1931 and I think this would just
be an idea that time has reemerged to attract that next generation. And with that, I would urge all members of this committee to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. >> I thank the gentleman. Uh, does the
gentleman insist on a point of order? >> Yes, I withdraw my point of order. >> Uh, the reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I then I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member.
>> Thank you, Mr. M. Mr. Chairman, federal prevailing wage standards such as Davis Bacon Act have helped ensure that workers on federal projects are afforded fair wages and are protected from exploitation while simultaneously ensuring that public investments yield
highquality work. By requiring that any school construction funed um under this under this bill are covered by prevailing wage standards by the act, we can ensure that workers will be paid fair wages and that the projects will
meet high standards. That is a um a good goal. We've adopted that idea in the past and in hope that we would recognize that our students deserved well- constructed schools and the workers deserve fair pay for for a day's work. I
yield back the balance of my time. >> I thank the gentleman. Are there any others who wish to be recognized? The gentleman from Utah, the vice chairman of the committee. Do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes. Uh real quick point, just want to educate everyone on the Davis Bacon and
where it started. It started because there were in uh 1931 black entrepreneurs coming from the south uh wanted to be part of the the the process of building up in this part of the country in the northern northeast and uh and these uh congressmen decided they
didn't want that to happen. So Davis Bacon was really a way to stop black entrepreneurs from competing and we need to move this thing forward. Realize let the free let the free market work. let the free market decide instead of a union wages and union workers only having those opportunities. I think when that happens we get the best price, the
best product um and our country can thrive in that process. So with that I yield back. I thank the gentlemen. Are there any others who wish to be recognized on this amendment? I then recognize myself for five minutes. Um while I certainly respect
the desire to make sure that quality um work is done uh on any project, uh I too agree with my u my colleague and friend from Utah that um this amendment does not afford that opportunity
or would it necessarily be required? The Davis Bacon Act requires the payment of government determined prevailing wages on federal construction projects costing more than $2,000. In 2023, the Biden Harris Department of Labor promagated a flawed Davis Bacon
rule that expanded the scope through regulation. Davis Bacon requirements disproportionately harm the ability of small businesses to compete on federal construction projects. Uh those are the businesses significantly found in my
district to cost across southern Michigan. This is especially problem problematic because more than 82% of the construction industry is employed by a small business. The amendment is a distraction that adds burdensome
requirements which in the end are a bad deal for small businesses and and taxpayers. and the the concern that we address here for education purposes with the charter charter schools. For that reason, I must
oppose this amendment. Are there any others who wish to be recognized on this amendment? Seeing none, uh >> um I recognize the gentle lady from Arizona, Miss Gha, to speak on the amendment.
>> Thank you, chairman. Um I am in favor of this amendment. I think it's important for us to provide a prevailing wage, important for us um as the federal government to keep pushing good jobs for um our families and the people in our
communities. And I would like to um send the balance of my time to Representative Norcross. >> Thank you. So I appreciate that we're having a discussion on this issue and and certainly as we can see there are
different views but when we look at small rather large contractors I couldn't agree with you most this levels the playing field in particular for those small contractors so everybody is playing on a level playing field as I
mentioned earlier it's incredibly important to understand how this wage issue is assessed and they're each done by localities. In our state, it goes county by county. They do this every
three years an assessment. Now, the good part about having Davis Bacon levels the playing field so small contractors can compete with large contractors. And quite frankly, as you said, the vast majority of work is done by what they
can serve small contractors. But here is the one item that most people don't understand. This committee and many of us get requests all the time for the federal government to fund apprenticeship programs. The remarkable
thing about this is the vast majority of those contractors who are covered under Davis Bacon have those collective bargaining rate, they have included the money to fund these school. So when you apply Davis Bacon, you're also making
sure that part of that money goes to the local training and apprentichip program so we don't have to come back and fund on top of this. The Department of Labor on registered programs in the construction industry by
far understands that the training programs that are out there are the finest in the country and are building those. The money that is part of the Davis Bacon goes directly to fund apprenticeship programs which I know we
all care about. With that, I yield back to the gentle woman. >> Thank you. I yield the balance of my time. >> Gentle lady yields. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and uh and I I appreciate this discussion and certainly
when it comes to apprenticeships and career and technical education and the investment in that incredibly important but we're talking about access to education with this bill. Um and the Department of Labor estimates that that Davis Bacon adds increased costs of 7 to
20%. I know that's a big range, but even a 7% increase can kill a project. uh 20% is probably lethal to a local education project in terms of construction. And so uh um I you know it just um I think this
amendment represents a tax on education uh which can prevent access uh in the end of u of achieving the educational goals were set out. And with that I'll I yield back. >> I thank gentlemen. Does anyone else seek
recognition on the Norcross amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross. All in favor say I. I. I. >> All oppose, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the
amendment is not agreed to. A roll call is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR786?
I recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia. What do you wish to be recognized for? Mr. >> Chairman, I have an amendment to Scott AMD01. >> The clerk will designate the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR7086
offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_amd_01. >> This gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
this bill replaces the the bill replaces the current per pupil facilities aid program with a new states facility aid program to enable state entities to aid in charter school facilities needs. However, the allowable uses of the funds
are much broader than under current law. For example, funding can be used to fund or create financing for acquiring, leasing, or renovating facilities as well as ongoing facilities costs. Funds can also be used to establish and maintain a reserve account in states
that did not receive a credit enhancement grant which are used to leverage private financing or to further fund a reserve account in states that did not receive the credit enhancement grant. Unlike the existing program, the per pupil facilities,
unlike the present program, the per pupil facilities aid program under which the federal share is gradually reduced from 90% to 20%. The federal share of the proposed program, the state facilities aid program remains constant
at 60% each year of the grant. Moreover, the non-federal share of the grant may be funded in whole or in part by one or more other organizations with no specifications on the types of organizations. Most notably, the state facilities aid program would establish
priorities where none exists in current law. These priorities would favor states that already have more charter friendly and more charter friendly charter friendly schools and more charter charter facilities. and are therefore
effectively ensuring that the number of charter schools will continue to grow more quickly in those states. Despite all of these novel aspects of the new program, there's no oversight or valuation requirement to determine how the program is working or the effects of
the program. So my amendment would reserve at least 5% of the funding under the new program for an annual evaluation of the program by state entities and the secretary to create transparency, accountability, and oversight and determine the efficacy of this new
program. It would also change the optional reservation of up to 5% of funding to a required reservation of it of at least 5% for technical assistance, dissemination, and other evaluations. Changes to the charter schools program
needs to meet the needs of the students and parents while maintaining accountability for taxpayers and it is impossible to create a new program. It is irresponsible to recreate a new program without studying its effectiveness. These reasons this amendment is necessary and I urge my
colleagues to support it. You back >> I withdraw my point of order. >> Gentleman yields. Uh Mr. of Missouri. You're recognized for 5 minutes. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman to speak on the amendment. Uh, this amendment forces
state entities to reserve an additional 5% of their funds for evaluation evaluations in addition to the 5% that's already reserved for evaluations, technical assistance, and dissemination. and requires the state entity to conduct
annual evaluations of their grantees to submit reports to to the secretary of education and the secretary to submit a comprehensive report to Congress every year. Charter schools are being choked with too much red tape. This amendment
makes the problem worse, not better. Of course, we all want to make sure charter school funds are used responsibly. That's why the bill already pro uh allows states to reserve 5% of funds to carry out evaluations, provide technical assistance, and disseminate information.
This is the same provision as in current law. This amendment would require states to withhold 10% in total for evaluations. If the existing 5% level is inadequate, the burden of proof is on my Democrat colleagues to show why existing
law has fallen short and why doubling this reservation is essential. Finally, this amendment has large paperwork requirements uh that will dramatically increase the red tape facing grantees. That's exactly the problem we're trying to fix today.
charter schools should be able to spend more time educating children and and not filling out forms. I'm opposed to this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote against it and in favor of the underlying bill. >> Anyone else? >> Gentleman yields back.
>> I yield back. >> Is there anyone else to speak on the amendment? Seeing that there are none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. An amendment is not agreed to. >> Roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed.
Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7086? Suspend. >> There are none. So we will suspend for a moment. Okay. Okay. Gotcha.
Before we move to consideration of HR 4624, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, I'd I'd like to take a point of privilege and acknowledge and thank the wife of Muhammad Ali, Lonni
Ali, uh for joining us here today. I'm I'm really privileged because um she and her late husband were longtime residents of my district in Buchanan, Michigan. And uh it's it's I know you've gone
south, but your heart is still there in Buchanan. So, it's still a Michigander. It's it's great to see you here. Join us for consideration of this important legislation. In the name of your husband, an inspiration to all
Americans. Thank you for being here. The committee will now proceed to consideration of that bill HR 4624 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the
bill. >> HR4624, a bill to amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to establish requirements for unified boxing organizations to further enhance the well-being of professional boxers and for other purposes.
>> Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And any amendment offered shall be considered as read. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR4624 offered by Mr. Wahlberg of Michigan identifier ANS4624_02. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in
the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. I'm proud to speak in support of HR 4624, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival
Act. This bill represents long overdue reform in a sport that has too often failed to prioritize the health and safety of its athletes. For decades, professional boxing operated with in inadequate oversight, allowing the
safety, health, and the overall well-being of boxers to take a backseat to exploitive uh practices. While the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 put better protections in place, boxers
continue to suffer under inconsistent oversight. HR 4624 addresses past failures headon while preserving choice for athletes. If a boxer enjoys fighting under the system of sanctioning organizations, he may do
so. If however he wants to put safety and transparency first, he may choose to join a unified boxing organization or UBO, an entity that is required under this bill to meet the highest standards of safety, transparency, and
accountability. This bill delivers reforms designed to strengthen the foundation of the support and prevent tragedy before it happens. The bill mandates comprehensive protections before, during, and after
each match for boxers participating in a UBO system. These protections include annual me exams for all fighters, including MRI scans uh and blood and anti-doping tests. Boxers 40 and older
will also receive supplemental exams to ensure age related risks are being monitored. Most importantly, these cost will not fall on the athletes. Along with stronger medical oversight,
HR 4624 brings unprecedented safety protocols to live events. This bill requires multiple ambulances and ringside physicians to be present at every match and mandate strict
independently enforced anti-doping policies. These safeguards are already standard in many major sports leagues. So why should boxers be excluded from such basic protections? They shouldn't. And with this bill, they
won't be. The amendment in the nature of a substitute extends the stren and strengthens safety and health protections for all professional boxers regardless of whether they compete within or outside of a UBO. These
protections include the full range of medical examinations, an increased presence of medical personnel at all boxing matches, a new certification system for ringside physicians, and consistent guidelines for testing for for prohibited substances. Additionally,
the NS the ANS strengthens key industrywide standards. fighters receive fair pay with a guaranteed minimum of $200 per round, which is an increase from the bill's original minimum of $150 per round. The
minimum insurance coverage requirement is also doubled to $50,000 with an additional $15,000 provided in the event of an accidental death. HR 4624 recognizes the cost of neglect and the
moral obligation to protect the athletes who step into the ring. It honors the legacy of Muhammad Ali by affirming the dignity, safety, and basic rights of every boxer. I thank I thank Representative Brian
Jack for his leadership on this bipartisan bill, and I urge adoption of the ANS and I yield back. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, HR 4624, the the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, has been promoted as a solution to revive the sport of boxing. This bill would amend the
professional boxing safety act of 1996 to allow the creation of a new kind of business on in the sport under which a single entity called the unified boxing organization has control over promotion rankings and governance. This bill is a
dramatic shift from how professional boxing operates now in the United States. Today, the sport is largely decentralized with multiple governing bodies and powerful players. In fact, over the quarter century, federal law has mandated the separation of
promoters, sanctioning bodies, and managers by imposing conflict of interest firewalls and transparency requirements in order to protect boxers and the integrity of the sport. Congress also went a step further to protect boxers economic interests by prohibiting
certain coercive contract provisions. The reforms made by Congress are critical. And that is why I that is why while I'm open to innovation, I'm concerned that the original version of HR 4624
does not go far enough to protect boxers and the sport from corruption. The bill would allow the owners of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the UFC, the World Wrestling Entertainment Entertaining, to dominate professional
boxing with the UFC business model. UFC has run intense scrutiny over its mult over the uh power it has the monopoly power it has in mixed martial arts and its exploitative contract provisions. These contracts essentially lock
fighters in and impose near total control over their careers. These coercive provisions include automatic extensions when a fighter becomes a champion, lifetime agreements where fighters will forfeit their publicity rights and prohibitions on fighters from
negotiating with rival promoters during critical negotiating periods. Just last year, UFC settled a class action antitrust case for $375 million over the monopoly power and anti-competitive contracts that led to lower compensation
for fighters. Given that approach and the absence of any provisions in the original 4624 to address course of contracts, I'm deeply concerned the boxers who choose to sign with the unified boxing organization will never
have a choice to leave. Setting aside the bill's weaknesses on course of contracts, I'm happy to see that the um ANS does include provision improvements from the original bill such as increasing the minimum
payment of $200 for each round in which the boxer participates as well as important health and safety standards. It is important to note that this bill does include many important health and safety related provisions such as minimum health standards and
requirements and protocols to deal with concussions, periodic quality physical examinations, presence of ringside medical assistance, and others. These are critical provisions which will protect the health and safety of boxers. But as I mentioned in my opening, I
appreciate the good faith conversations my staff have had with the chairman's staff on this bill. And I want to acknowledge that we're able to make significant progress in a short period of time and that progress has been reflected in the amendment and nature of
a substitute. However, we're unable to resolve several key issues at the heart of the bill because of an unnecessary need by the majority to rush the bill to mark up to date. But I'm hoping that amendments can address these remaining deficiencies. Again, Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank you for working with us and including many of our suggestions in the amendment and nature of a substitute and I yield back. >> I thank you gentlemen. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment
and the nature of a substitute? Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at this desk at the desk. >> Uh, we're not there yet. >> Oh, I'm sorry. We're still talking about the amendment and nature of a
substitute. We will recognize you at appropriate time. Are there any me other members that wish to speak on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment and nature of substitute, committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who
wish to offer amendments? I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, to offer his amendment. >> All right, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that the clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR4624
offered by Mr. Harris of North Carolina identifier HR RNC_034. >> I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina. >> I reserve a point of order. A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina for five
minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to better align the bill with established industry practice and state laws in some of the nation's premier combat sports states, including Nevada. The amendment requires two
ambulances and two doctors to be continuously present at professional boxing matches. This amendment does not in any way weaken current medical protections for boxers, but actually strengthens the current law standard. A boxing organization is still responsible
for ensuring that fighters receive immediate professional medical care when it matters most. However, my change from the arbitrary increases in the original text avoids overreaching federal standards. The federal government should not impose confusing or impractical
requirements that make it harder for boxing organizations to operate responsibly. By setting a reasonable baseline, we protect athletes. We respect state expertise and allow the sport to flourish under modernized law. Washington should not be in the business
of micromanaging an entire sport. And my amendment seeks to alleviate overreaching federal regulation. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman from Virginia insist on a point of order?
>> No. M. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the >> reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, at the heart of this bill is a proposal
for the federal law governing the sport of boxing to be amended to allow a new type of entity called the unified boxing organization. Under the current law, in traditional boxing, an ambulance and medical personnel must be on site during a match standing by to handle
emergencies. We want to note that many um uh many of these boxing matches include several matches. So this bill in its current form improves on those requirements to ensure that medical doctors with
appropriate certifications are on site and it calls on UBOS's to invest even more in emergency p personnel. The ANS also ensures that if an ambulance leaves an event to take a boxer to the hospital that another is already on standby.
Gentleman from North Carolina's amendment would reduce the number of ambulances and doctors who must be on site during a UBL boxing match. And this amendment is a step backwards from the underlying bill. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose it. You back. I
thank the gentleman. He yields. Are there any other members who seek recognition on the Harris amendment? If none, I recognize myself. I support the gentleman's amendment. This amendment does not reduce the quality of
care boxers would receive. Instead, this amendment would still require any boxing match organized by unified boxing organization to have two ringside physicians and two ambulances on site at all times during the event.
This amendment aligns the underlying bill with the policies in several states as well as common practice in the industry. I'll be voting yes on this amendment and I yield back.
Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment by Mr. Harris? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose, no.
>> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Is a roll call requested. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk. >> I recognize the gentle lady from Minnesota, Miss Omar for her five minutes. >> Thank you. Uh, first I want to thank Representative Stevens for her partnership and hard work in negotiating tirelessly and in good faith to to make
this >> Excuse me. Uh, Representative Omar, the clerk needs to report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR4624 offered by Miss Omar, Minnesota, identifier Omar_s4624_05.
>> Reserve a point of order. >> A point of order is reserved. Now I recognize a gentle lady from from Minnesota, Miss Omar, for her full five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank Representative Stevens for her partnership and hard work in negotiating tirelessly and in good faith to make
this bill better for all boxers. This amendment addresses the issue of coercive contract by placing sensible limits on such practices. Our amendment will simply ensure that the revival of American boxing does not come at the cost of fighters freedom to choose and
to move in their own careers. Specifically, it would allow boxers to communicate with other UBOs within a month of their contract ending. Require UBOS to arrange a fight for a boxer at a minimum of once every six months. codify
the increased minimum per round payment of $200 and require UPOS's must pay a boxer at least $200 for each month that the UPO arbitrarily decides not to schedule a fight for them. And most importantly, it would prohibit UBOs from
signing boxers to contracts longer than six years. In practice, this means we are addressing both the right for boxers to enter free agency and taking away league's ability to ice out boxers if they choose different directions in their careers and contracts. There is
more work to be done to fully protect boxers labor rights such as strengthening their ability to access remedies in court. But this amendment is an important step in the right direction because at a minimum no UPO should be able to use long-term restrictive
contracts to effectively dictate the terms and conditions of a boxer's entire career. If we want this bill come close to living up to the legacy of the Muhammad Ali Act, then we must include these basic provisions on contract fairness. I strongly urge my colleagues
to support our common sense amendment. Thank you and I yield back. >> From a point of order, >> I thank the gentle lady and that point of order is is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize myself. Um, in support,
pardon, >> I recognize the gentle lady from Arizona, Miss Grahalova to speak on Representative Omar's amendment. >> Thank you. Um, I'd like to speak in support of the amendment. I think one of the things, well, first we are honored
to have Mrs. Ali here and um, in the audience who is now an Arizonan, just so we're all clear. Thank you very much. very excited to hear about that. Um, you know, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act is a federal act designed to protect
professional boxers from promoter exploitation, mandating financial transparency, fair contracts, and separation of management and promoter roles while strengthening state commission oversight to combat corruption to promote fair play in the sport. This proposed legislation um aims
to update these protections with minimum pay, better health insurance, new structures, but it is sparking the debate um of the potential changes like the TKO and the UFC, which critics fear could weaken safeguards. So, I am
concerned um with putting UFC promoters the system into that kind of model because while promoters and TV deals are doing great, fighters are not necessarily. The reason why many UFC fighters are trying boxing, for example, like um McCconor McGregor versus Floyd
is this issue. So, I am in favor of this amendment because I do think that it provides um a little more safeguard to each boxer, which in when when we're looking at reforming boxing, I think one of the concerns that we have is making sure that any that these are actual
improvements and um not do anything to harm the individual boxers or their careers. >> And with that, I yield back. I thank the gentle lady that we all already have Mrs. Ali's commitment to be a
Michigander who'll be a snowbird in Arizona. We we can work on that. We can work on that. Are there any others who wish to speak on the Omar amendment?
Seeing that, I recognize myself uh to speak in support of the general ladies amendment. Allowing contracts to last six years gives unified boxing organizations the time for boxer development and investment, and it also aligns with industry practices among
many other professional sports. The additional provisions in this amendment reinforce protections for boxers, which aligns with the bill's intent. This amendment is one of many of the provisions where our Democratic uh colleagues concerns were heard and
addressed in this ANS. I will be voting yes on this amendment. Are there any others who wish to speak on the Omar amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Minnesota. All in favor say I. I. All
oppose. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
There being no further amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment and nature of a substitute to HR 4624. >> Oh, this one. >> Uh, further action on HR 4624 is postponed. Pursuant to the previous
order, the chair declares the committee in recess. the subject to the and subject to the call of the chair. We expect to reconvene promptly at 2 pm. Thank you. So the committee now stands in recess. I love
Heat. Heat. The committee will reconvene and come to order following our recess. Uh we'll proceed to the prop postpone request for recorded votes. We'll now be voting on three amendments to the amendment in a nature of
substitute to HR782. The amendment offered by representative Bonamichi titled Bonamy069. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using
electronic voting system. Clerk will open the board. Good luck to wait We're done. Have all members who wish to be recorded voted? >> Do any members wish to change their
vote? >> Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 15 yays and 18 nays. The amendment is not adopted. We'll now we'll now go to the amendment
offered by Representative Scott Scott vaZ051. The clerk recorded vote is requested. Members record their votes using electronic voting system. Clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish
to be recorded? >> I know. >> I'll get him move. Do any members wish to change their vote? >> Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 15 nays and 19 nays.
>> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the amendment offered by Mr. Scott. Scott_GAO_01 recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using an electronic
voting system. Clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none. Will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 15
yays and 19 nazs. >> Amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR782. All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose. No.
>> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR782 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the
bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Recorded vote is requested. Members will
record their votes using electronic voting system. Open the vote, please. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? >> Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 19 nays and 15 nazs. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to to HR782 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the
record that a quorum is present. We'll now move to be voting on two amendments to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR786. The amendment offered by Mr. Norcross Norcro035.
A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wished to be recorded? Do any any members wish to change their
vote? Hearing none, will the clerk close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 16 yays and 18 nazs. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now go to the amendment offered by uh
ranking member Scott title Scott Aamd01. Uh the clerk will a recorded vote is requested. Uh uh will the will the members vote by the electronic voting system? Open the vote,
please. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do >> we'll wait. Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none. Will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally?
>> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yays and 19 nays. The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of the substitute to HR786. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No.
>> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR786 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the
bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. >> All opposed? No. >> In the opinion of the chair. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members
will record their votes using electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally?
>> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 19 nays and 15 nazs. >> The A's have it and the motion is agreed to to HR 7086 as amended and the accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the
record that a quorum is present. The question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute as amended to HR 4624. All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose. No.
In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment and the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 4624 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be
agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose no. >> In the opinion of the chair the eyes have it. >> Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman I'll be vote Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll be voting yes and
I'd encourage the chair to continue working with us to improve the bill before it gets to the floor. >> I appreciate so much uh that commitment uh Mr. Scott and you can count on the fact that uh on almost any any piece of
legislation we're willing to communicate and if we can make it better, we'll make it better. Recorded vote. >> A recorded vote is now requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please
open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 30 yays and four
nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 4624 is as amended and the company material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I ask unanimous consent that uh
staff be authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to today's bills. Without objection, so ordered. Pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 2L, I give notice that all members have the requisite number of days to file supplemental, minority, additional, or desending views without
objection. So ordered. Without objection, any members who wish to insert materials in the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. If there's no further business before the committee, without objection, the committee stands
adjourned.