Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act, which authorizes Federal assistance for programs that serve and protect runaway and homeless youth and missing and exploited children.

H.R. 1925 contains the reauthorization of both the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the Missing Children's Assistance Act. This legislation strengthens these programs in order to address the unique needs of these at-risk youth. With this bill, we will ensure the protection of runaway and homeless youth, keeping them off the streets and away from dangerous circumstances by providing both emergency shelter programs and long-term supportive assistance. Additionally, we continue to support the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and its efforts to locate and recover missing children and help prevent child abductions and sexual exploitation.

H.R. 1925 reauthorizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), and will continue to fund the Basic Center Program, the Transitional Living Program, and the Street Outreach Program. Grants are used to develop or strengthen community-based programs that are not part of the law enforcement, juvenile justice, and child welfare system. The Act has been successful in meeting the needs of runaway and homeless youth and in reuniting these youth with their families. There are, however, some specific improvements in H.R. 1925, including adjusting the funding allocation between the Basic Center Program and the Transitional Living Program to address the increased need for transitional services and enable more communities to serve the long-term needs of runaway and homeless youth. This legislation also clarifies that group homes in the Transitional Living Program may provide parenting youth and their children with a supportive and supervised living arrangement in which the pregnant or parenting youth learn parenting and other skills to promote their long-term economic independence and self-sufficiency in order to ensure the well-being of their children.

The Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act also addresses the needs of missing, abducted, and sexually exploited children by reauthorizing the Missing Children's Assistance Act. This legislation increases the authorization level of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from $10 million to $20 million for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008, extending the authorization that was begun in the PROTECT Act, and extends the authorization of the remaining activities under the Act through 2008.

I would like to thank Congressman Gingrey for his leadership as the sponsor of this bill, Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra for his guidance on this bill, as well as Mr. Miller and Mr. Hinojosa for working with us in a bipartisan manner from the very beginning of the process.

This legislation includes provisions worked out by Members on both sides of the aisle, and reauthorizes programs that should be supported by the Congress. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act.

As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I would like to begin by commending the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), and the bill's author, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for their leadership in fashioning a sensible bipartisan consensus in this very important area of public policy.

Our Nation's most vulnerable youth needed us to set aside our differences and come together and step up to the challenge of getting them the help they need and deserve. I think in this bill we have done that.

Mr. Speaker, compared to the size of some of the other reauthorization bills that have come out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, some may say this is a small bill. But I think we should make no mistake about it. This bill will be a big deal to the youth and the thousands of homeless and runaway children who, by virtue of our actions today, will have a better opportunity to reclaim their lives with the Federal support this bill provides. It will help throw many youth whose lives are sinking that life jacket they so desperately need.

For the first time, this legislation includes the specific authorization for Federal programs designed to help runaway and homeless youth, $105 million for fiscal year 2004, which represents a 19 percent increase for the worthy outreach, screening, counseling, referral, shelter services, and other services funded under the act.

It includes maternity group homes to support teen mothers' care for their young children as they begin their walk down the road to financial independence.

It sets the age of eligibility for needed services at 18, so vulnerable teens are not summarily kicked out of programs helping them turn their lives around after an arbitrary period of time.

It sensibly ensures that services for homeless and runaway youth are well coordinated with other Federal programs, like the McKinney-Vento Act, the Work Force Investment Act, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

It also reauthorizes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which has proven itself an invaluable tool to law enforcement since its creation nearly two decades ago.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the substantial bipartisan majority that turned back what I believe was an ideologically-driven attempt in committee to handcuff public health officials in efforts to ensure the reproductive health of the youth we are trying to reach with this legislation. Our unity across the aisle on this committee was a triumph for good science and common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a very worthy piece of legislation and a good response to a critical public policy need. Again, I want to commend the leadership of the committee leaders on both sides of the aisle and again, the author of the bill, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a bill, but in equally strong opposition to the rule. I do not know how much longer that this House is going to continue to suppress the rights of the minority to be heard on the floor of the House. There was a little news last week about the 51 Democrats in Texas that used the rules of the house to go into Oklahoma to stop a bill from passing. Many people do not understand why they did that.

Today is another example of the frustration on the minority side when the rule does not allow free and open debate on this floor on issues. I disagree with my friend from Oregon and will oppose his amendment. I disagree with my friends on this side of the aisle who contend that this bill does all the bad things to our national forests, because it does not, in my opinion.

I have spent about 6 to 8 years working with chairman Bob Smith of Oregon, and now the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and listening to all of the opposing arguments. In the Committee on Agriculture we had an open rule. Anybody could offer an amendment and have full debate on these issues.

What is different about the floor of the House? Why is it that, day after day after day, we come here and we say we cannot debate these issues openly and honestly.

I do not understand this. This was not the Contract with America. Some of you remember when I used to stand with you when you were in the minority and oppose the majority on this side when they would not allow you to have your amendments. And we came up with a rule. We came up with a rule that said if you have got one Democrat and one Republican that is for something, put it out on the floor and let it be discussed. Give us a time limit, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 1 minute; but just let it be debated.

That is what this House should be all about. That is not what the pattern of rules does. And to those who wonder why the 51 did what they did, remember, who is causing it in the House of Representatives? The same person, same persons, are causing it in the Texas legislature.

What are we afraid of? I am for you. I am for the bill. I think it ought to be voted on. But my colleagues on this side who have a different opinion have every absolute right to have their issues debated within the confines of reasonable time restraints.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule today. It will pass. But I have asked the chairman and I ask the leadership and I ask my colleagues on the other side, please do not continue this pattern of not allowing free and open debate. We should not be afraid. We have a good bill today. I am prepared to argue and oppose amendments, I am prepared to support the bill. It is a good bill. But why do we not allow free and open debate?

The answer to that question, to those who wonder why the 51 in Texas exercised their rights under the rules, this is a good example of the frustration building on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

I have enjoyed this debate today and also have enjoyed this debate we have had over the past couple of years. It sounds as if we have not debated this issue at all. We have. We have had countless hearings, two in Arizona, on this issue. So this issue has been debated.

I would suggest that while we are fiddling here, Arizona is burning. That is what we saw last year, certainly. The largest of the wildfires across the country was in Arizona. We lost a half a million acres. I would suggest that those who say there are differing opinions as to whether or not treated forests fare better after a big wildfire or during a big wildfire than untreated forests, that debate was settled in Arizona. Pictures have already been shown today of the difference in the forests that have been treated and those that have not.

I had the good fortune to grow up just a few miles from where that fire was raging last year. To watch what has happened since then, to watch the devastation in those communities that have not been able to even get into the forest and to salvage what little is left because of lawsuits already filed, or the Forest Service having to wait an entire year to put out contracts, simply to go through the process that it takes.

In Arizona, 11 of the 15 decisions to implement mechanical fuel treatment methods were appealed, and two of those were litigated. We do have a problem.

The Native Americans were mentioned. They certainly need some more exemptions and need to have their process moved forward.

But I would like to suggest that if you look at the tribal forests, if you look at the reservation land in Arizona, if it fared far better than the other lands simply because they have a more expedited process, that is what we are looking for here.

This is not an extreme piece of legislation. It is more tinkering around the edges if we go with the substitute.

Let me just suggest that while we are talking about what is political and what is good policy, one of the debates that we had and one of the amendments that is part of the Democratic substitute would narrow the so-called red zone around communities where the Democrats would like us to focus all of our activity to one-half mile.

Now, if we consider that in Arizona the fire, the Rodeo-Chedeski fire at times had embers that actually jumped 3 miles, 3 miles, more than six times the so-called red zone that the Democrat substitute would protect, I would suggest that it does no good to go ahead and protect an area for a half-mile around a community when we have a fire that will jump as much as 3 miles.

So if we have a process that actually sets good policy, then we will set politics aside. I would suggest that is what this bill does. I would urge support of the rule and support of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important and much-needed legislation which reauthorizes the Federal programs that protect and assist the most vulnerable young people in our society.

This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. I would like to thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the sponsor of H.R. 1925, for working diligently with us to ensure that this important legislation could move expeditiously through the process and remain something we can all support.

We would never get anything through the legislative process without dedicated, professional staff work; and this bill is no exception. I would like to also commend our committee staff, Denise Forte and Ricardo Martinez, as well as the staff for the majority, Whitney Rhoades, Krisann Pierce, and Rebecca Jones for their excellent work.

The programs funded under this act reflect what brings us together as a society. In the face of crisis, Americans want to lend a helping hand. That is what these programs do, they provide emergency shelter and services to young people in crisis, helping them get on a path to healthy, independent lives, and hopefully reuniting them with their families.

The programs funded under this act, Basic Centers, Transitional Living Programs, and Street Outreach Programs, are desperately needed in communities across the country. We have excellent programs operating in my own home State of Texas. During our subcommittee hearing, we learned of the tremendous work being done by the Washington, D.C., Latin American Youth Center through these programs.

We heard from a young man who was once homeless. Through these programs, he is now on the path to independence and possibly a college degree. I asked him how the program earned his trust so he was willing to leave the streets and take another life path. His answer was simple: They gave him a place to stay immediately.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that other young people in need will have a place to stay, a place that will put them on a path to a better life.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to show you here on these charts what we are talking about. I think for the folks here in the Chamber and at home, they are tired of talking. They are tired of debating. They are tired of process debates. But what they are really tired of is fires.

Now, this is an area that the President of the United States visited last summer in Jackson County, the Squire's Peak Fire. It is an example of how a fire on treated land looks when it is burning. This is what it looks like after it has burned. So you wonder whether treatment works or not, here is your example. During the burn. After the burn. Here is where it had not been treated.

President Bush stood right here on this area and met with the firefighters who actually took this picture as they escaped this area. They had been doing work there prior to the fire and then converted over to be firefighters. This is what it looks like when you have not treated an area. This is what it looks like after that area burns. This is what it looks like.

I am tired of black forests. I want green forests. The underlying bill

would not touch Squire's Peak because it says 85 percent of the work has to be within half a mile. This is, I do not know, 6, 10 miles away from Medford. It was a long drive up there in the motorcade.

This is what I am trying to prevent from happening. I want treatment on these lands because it is people I represent whose homes are being burned, whose watersheds are threatened. Entire communities are on 30- minute evacuation notices. They are tired of us debating this and putting off decisions. We have another fire season upon us right now. 190 million acres of America's forest lands across this country are subject to this kind of fire if we do not do the kind of forest work that we are advocating in this legislation.

This is what you get. Who wants that? Do you think spotted owls thrive in this? No. Any endangered species? No.

So we want to get in and be able to do this work in an expedited manner that involves people at the front ends like the Western Governors Association that says needs to be done, so that we involve people in the planning process in the beginning rather than let them send in 37 cent appeals at the end when they have never participated in the project. So we do that. We bring them into the front end of this, and we streamline the appeals process.

Yes, we say to the courts, when you do a preliminary injunction every 45 days, you need to find out the effect of taking no action. Because when you are treating lands you are taking action, and you get fires that result in lands that look like that. When you delay and you do not take action, this is the outcome: burned, dead, sterilized forests and soils.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. I heard my colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), speak with great passion about the need to pass legislation that would remove this threat of catastrophic wildfire; and I want to associate myself with their remarks and their concerns.

I heard my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), talk about the broad-based nature of the bill before us today; but I would beg to differ with my colleague. There are more of us that would join the gentleman if the rule were more broadly structured and if the bill broadened the coalition.

In the end we are trying to raise trust with this legislation. We are trying to create a sense in all of our communities that are threatened by catastrophic wildfire that we will focus our efforts on the so- called red zones and in our watersheds where our water supplies are at risk. In Colorado, the red

zone is 6 million acres alone. That is where people and property come into contact with forests that are in unhealthy conditions.

I offered a number of amendments in the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, and I distilled those down to two amendments that I took to the Committee on Rules. One would have focused 70 percent of the dollars that we would spend in the red zones where the risk is the greatest. That amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules.

I offered a second amendment, also sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), which would streamline the NEPA process but not entirely toss it out. If we eliminate all public input, we are going to reduce the levels of trust, the levels of involvement; and in the end, we are going to see additional litigation and stalemate.

This legislation needs to be passed, but it has to come out of the House in a form that the Senate would support. I worry. I am concerned. I believe that this bill as it is constructed would not be acceptable to the Senate.

What are we going to find ourselves in again? We are going to be in a gridlock situation and see more litigation, more stall, more lack of attention to our forests; and in the end, our efforts are going to be counterproductive.

So I urge the Members to defeat this rule, to broaden the rule to allow debate, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), so eloquently pointed out to us earlier. Let us go back to the days of more open rules, where we take the time in the House to really work together to create a broad-based bill that the Senate and the President could support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my distinguished friend and Member for yielding me time, and I thank the Members that are involved in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for 17 years; and, as Members know, I work issues involving fire protection. I have been in every State in the country. I have been on the forest fires myself in California, Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington, and Idaho, to name a few, not as a Member of Congress but as one of those out there trying to learn lessons as to how we can better respond.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the President's healthy forests initiative, but I am here today to put the President and the administration on notice because I am not happy.

Mr. Speaker, it was just 6 years ago when I chaired the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science; and in looking for solutions to apply technology to solve problems with forests fires, I was able to put $14 million of DOD money into using our classified satellite system to detect forest and wildlands fires when they start and to have that information transmitted instantly to the local responders. It makes sense. You put the fire out when it starts, you do not have a problem.

Mr. Speaker, that was 6 years ago. The money was spent. The technology was developed. The software system exists, but there was a debate over which agency would head it up, the NRO, NOAA, DOD, FEMA. Guess where it is today, Mr. Speaker, as America burns? The software that we paid for to protect America's forests and wildlands is sitting in boxes in Crystal City because the agencies are feuding over who will run the program.

Mr. Speaker, I will not accept this. I have used the process available to me. I talked to Joe Allbaugh when he headed FEMA. I have talked to the administration, to the White House; and today we have no response. The use of this is scheduled for 2006; $7 million today would put the program in place in time for this fire season.

So if we do not have it in place, we are going to spend billions of dollars in the amount of money necessary to respond to forest fires when $6 million today would put into place the fire program that exists in boxes in Crystal City and has been sitting there for 4 years.

We should have offered an amendment to the bill, but I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt. But I am putting you on notice. If we do not get this program operational this year, it is the fault of the White House and this Congress, because the technology is there to detect and deal with these fires as soon as they occur. The firefighters know that. The State forest firefighter leaders know that. It is about time that we responded.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children's Protection Act. I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); Select Education subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra); and Select Education subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), for working together to produce a great piece of legislation. I also want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his introduction of this legislation which reaches out to one of America's youngest hard-to-serve populations.

According to the second ``National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway Children'' released in October of 2002, it is estimated that there are approximately 80,000 children reported missing each year, which is 2,000 children each day.

The Illinois Coalition to End Homelessness estimates that of the 150,000 that are homeless in Illinois, approximately 12,000 are unaccompanied teenagers. This resolution reaches out to our young people who are in need and who are in some of the most desperate situations. Unfortunately, we cannot make street life disappear or even make it reach a level of utopia or have the sense of morality that we would seek, but we can ensure that there are services made available to help ease the stress and fear of not having the security of a home or family.

I am pleased to support this resolution because it will provide grants to support emergency centers, long-term residential supports, and street-based outreach and education to those individuals that have been victims of sexual abuse or are sexually active. The 19 percent increase over fiscal year 2003, bringing the funding total to $105 million, is very promising. And I believe that as a result of it we will save many young lives from violence, disease, and death. By reaching out to help these young people turn their lives around, we are really helping our Nation decrease the number of teens that will resort to violence, drugs, and sex for survival.

I believe that this is a seriously important piece of legislation. And, once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his understanding and sensitivity in introducing it. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the ranking

member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for their leadership on bringing this to us today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I caught a note common to both my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), that this is too important to play politics.

There is much divergence on opinion in terms of forest health. There are those in the environmental community that would point out that heavily logged areas actually are those that have suffered most in firefighting.

But there are many areas of agreement. The Democratic substitute captures those areas of agreement. It would focus funding and fire protection activity where it is needed most, in the sensitive interface surrounding communities. It would require that 85 percent of the funding be spent in and around those same communities and water supplies. It keeps the activities out of the controversial areas, like the roadless areas and old-growth forests. It shortens the appeals process but does not shut out the public or tamper with judicial review. Most importantly, it starts rebuilding trust between the many parties that are constantly at odds regarding policies regarding public land.

I understand why some of our friends in the rural communities, some of our environmental friends, get extremely cranky about this. We need to start rebuilding a sense of confidence and trust that we can work together to solve problems. This Democratic substitute would do so.

It would, unlike the underlying bill, actually put authorized money, $4.5 billion, that could be spent to help these timber-dependent communities revitalize their local economies, putting people to work to make communities safer.

In the long run, unless we are willing to take a broader view of what goes on in the flame zone where the drought areas are and those that have development encroaching in the forestlands, unless and until we change our view about how we manage and protect them, we are going to be faced with this problem time and time again.

But as dangerous as forest fires are, I would suggest as far as this institution, an inability of our being able to come together to work cooperatively to build the trust out in the broader community is equally as dangerous, equally as troubling.

I am going to vote against the rule and hope that we can change the nature of it so that people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I on this side of the aisle can debate our legitimate differences, offer up proposals, but allow the whole House to work its will.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nevada and the gentleman from Michigan for introducing House Resolution 805 to bring awareness and express support for runaway youth prevention programs. As the author of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act, which was signed into law by President Bush almost a year ago today, I believe it is important to protect our children from early tragedy. As some of my colleagues may remember, H.R. 1925 reauthorizes and amends the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the Missing Children's Assistance Act and extends the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children and other program activities annual funding through the year 2008.

As an OB/GYN physician for almost 30 years and as a legislator, I have made it a priority to protect and defend children. The future well-being of the Nation is dependent on the value placed on young people and the opportunities provided for youth to acquire the knowledge, the skills and the abilities necessary to develop into safe, healthy and productive adults. I care about the safety of all youth and I want to end the vicious cycle that creates broken families and unwanted children.

With statistics indicating that one out of seven children run away from home before the age of 18, I believe we need to work to promote and encourage organizations that help children vacate dangerous homes and prevent others from making hasty and, oftentimes, unsafe decisions to leave.

Mr. Speaker, with November being National Runaway Prevention Month, I believe it is important for Congress to recognize effective runaway youth prevention programs so we can save lives and prevent tragedy. National Runaway Prevention Month will educate young people about the risks associated with running away from home and the resources available to them should they run away or be expelled from home. During the month of November, communities across the country will sponsor activities to celebrate National Runaway Prevention Month. Planned activities include inviting lawmakers, media, community leaders and others to visit programs that serve youth, organizing community service events and developing materials and presentations to educate youth, parents, teachers, law enforcement officials, businesses and other community members about local resources available to youths in crisis.

With the future well-being of our children at stake, I ask my colleagues to pass this resolution and support National Runaway Prevention Month.