Supporting the goals and ideals of National GEAR UP Day.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1745 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1745 provides a closed rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of December 3, 2010. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and put

American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires. This should be our priority and shouldn't be a tough choice to make. Today we can focus on economic growth to help those who are suffering from this recession and to provide permanent, equitable tax relief for the middle class.

These should not be controversial positions. They aren't and they shouldn't be. The economic growth that all Americans can share in ought to be a top priority for every elected official, and lowering the tax burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight.

After the last administration and the previous Congress spent billions of dollars starting two foreign wars and bailing out the big banks that ran roughshod over our economy, isn't it only fair that we do more to help out those who are struggling to find work and to make ends meet? Today we are simply voting on whether or not to protect the middle class and to make sure working families do not suffer needlessly as winter approaches. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is not political showmanship or a partisan game. We are doing the work the American people asked us to do. We are not voting on whether or not to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. We are only voting on extending tax cuts for the middle class, and this is something I sincerely believe we should all agree on.

One of the biggest pieces of misinformation about ending tax cuts for the wealthy is that it would hurt small businesses, which is simply not true. The bill we are talking about today extends tax cuts for incomes up to $250,000. That covers 97 percent of all small businesses in the United States. And let's be clear about another thing: For all small businesses, the cuts continue for their first $250,000 of profit.

If we really want to help small businesses, let's offer real direct benefits. Let's help them access funding to grow, offer larger tax deductions for purchasing equipment or create incentives to hire more workers.

I am glad many business owners in my State, the State of Maine, have been able to see through this misinformation. Jim Wellehan, who owns one of the largest shoe store chains in the State, has recently come out against tax cuts for the wealthy because they offer no benefit to his business or his employees. He recently said it makes no sense from any perspective to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. It will just increase the wealth gap and create more of a social and economic problem.

Jim hits on a critical point. Over the last 30 years, the wealthiest have gotten richer and richer compared to everyone else. In 1980 the average income of the country's top .01 percent of earners was 180 times that of the bottom 90 percent. Today that number is 1,000 times. Meanwhile taxes for the rich have gone down dramatically. So as the wealthiest take a larger and larger piece of the pie, they have given less and less back to the public infrastructure, to our communities, and to the people who helped create that prosperity.

The truth about tax breaks for the ultra rich is that they are very, very expensive. Cutting taxes for those making over $250,000 will add $700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years alone. That's about the cost of the entire stimulus bill, and most economists agree it would do very little to stimulate the economy.

In January of this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed 11 policy proposals and ranked them by how effective they would be in fueling economic recovery.

Number one on that list was extending benefits for the unemployed because those dollars go immediately into local economies and spur more spending. If only that was the bill we were voting on today.

What was number 11? Number 11 on that list was extending tax cuts for the wealthy. The benefit of those dollars going to the rich was marginal, because that money would be mostly saved, not spent. That's just not right.

I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me today in supporting this commonsense bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to one of my colleagues, I want to answer a couple of things that my good colleague from California mentioned. Soon his party will be in power, and I am confident he will be the chair of the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee will be very open perhaps at that time to have more open rules and to change the process. So I look forward to, as a sophomore Member, learning how a different process will be conducted by the other side of the aisle.

I do want to remind him that during 12 years when his party was in control, there was never a tax bill that came to the floor which allowed for amendments. I don't know if that process will change in the future. It certainly wasn't that way in the past.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you for making that point. I think it is slightly different from the other point of saying that tax bills never were allowed to be amended in the last 12 years. But I look forward to modified open rules or open rules or whatever process we will be working with in the future. That isn't what we have before us today.

I do want to comment that while you were kind of referring to this as political theater, I also recall that you asked for 3 hours of debate on this; and if it is truly political theater, that would be tying up a lot of the people's time to have us conduct this debate for 3 hours if, in fact, you do not consider it serious debate. I mean, in my opinion, you and I just have a strong disagreement. Our two parties and many of our Members disagree on where the appropriate place to have tax cuts is.

We are putting this bill on the floor today because we believe it is important to extend tax cuts for the middle class, that that has the greatest benefit to our economy. And as the OMB and other studies have shown us, tax cuts for the wealthiest to the country just do not stimulate the economy. The money does not go where we think it needs to go to create more jobs, and it is not a good expenditure of $700 billion, which is what this will cost us over the next decade in a time when we are clamoring to find ways to reduce the deficit.

So I find it unfathomable that there would be any objection to taking a vote on what is clearly the most agreed upon part of our tax cuts here and then allowing for other debate on the rest of the package. So for me, this is a logical way to bring this to the floor. I am pleased that we have this opportunity here.

I am a little frustrated every time I hear this tried to be portrayed as the real argument is only about small businesses. You know, 2 percent of the small businesses in our country are the ones that will be affected by this.

I disagree with your statement that Democrats love employees and dislike employers. Many of us on this side of the aisle are employers. I am an employer. I have a small business, and I actually feel pretty good about myself.

I do appreciate that, and I am glad to know that dear Senator Tsongas' wife has corrected you on the appropriate way to use that quote. But either way, it was something that you brought to the floor to make the point that somehow you think this bill is put forward so that Democrats can show their disapproval of employers. And I can speak

personally that I work closely with employers in my district. I am an employer and think there are employers who will benefit under this as well. That is why I quoted, in my own remarks, Jim Wellehan who owns a chain of shoe stores in our State who said: I am not in favor of a bill that would give tax cuts to the wealthy because it doesn't do anything to help my employees or my business. And that, in fact, is what he is concerned about. You know, employers need customers, which are those employees, and that is why we consider it so critical to make sure that we do something to benefit those people who will be purchasing.

Just one other comment that I had in my notes here today from a small business owner in Lincoln, Nebraska. People talk about the $250,000 without talking about that as net profit. Here is how he described it: A lot of people don't understand how small business works. We reinvest in our business. We try to minimize the amount of taxable income we have. I went out and bought an $80,000 piece of equipment. I did it so I could reduce my taxes. The only people I can think of who could honestly call themselves small businesses that this would affect would be stock brokers and lawyers.

That is what Rick Poore, owner of a Lincoln, Nebraska, clothing firm who employs 30 people thinks about this.

Well, if in fact the 2 percent we are trying to help today are stock brokers and lawyers, I don't think the American public is clamoring for them to have another tax break, and I think people aren't explaining and displaying an understanding of how business works. This is about net profit for small businesses, which even reduces further the number of businesses who will be affected by this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would just say again that I think we have a difference of opinion on the semantics here.

You want to argue that, if we don't continue tax cuts/tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country that we are increasing taxes. I would say it is time we let those tax breaks end, those tax breaks that went on for too long and that did nothing, in my opinion, to stimulate the economy.

I also just want to add my own comment.

You know, there is a lot of interpretation about November 2. The voters cast their votes. Things changed dramatically. Many of us who have been in politics over time know that sometimes you're in the majority, sometimes you're in the minority; sometimes your ideas come out on top, and sometimes they don't.

But I have to say personally, in interpreting my own district, voters heard me say every day that I pledge to continue the tax breaks for the middle class but that I will not vote to extend them for the wealthiest in this country. I debated my opponent, and it was written about in the newspaper. There were endless interviews when I made it very clear as to what my point of view was and why I thought it was important. I come from a State where small business rules, where I am a small business owner, and where I said to people, You know, this isn't a small business issue; this is about helping the wealthiest people in this country.

I just have to say, when I go back and look at the November 2 election, oddly enough, I'm still here, and I intend to be here on January 5 and to be sworn in again. Somehow, the voters in my district said, Go for it. We don't want to see any more tax breaks for the wealthy. We, in fact, only want to see tax cuts for the middle class.

So I am interpreting November 2 to mean we are doing the right thing on the floor today. We are putting forward the one measure that allows us to make sure we can separate the tax cuts for the wealthiest from the tax cuts for the middle class. That is what we are doing here today.

Let me just close, Mr. Speaker.

Ten years ago, Congress passed a package of tax cuts with the lion's share of the benefits going to the wealthiest of the wealthy. The stated intent was to grow and secure our economy. Today, millions of families across this country are struggling. They are worried about finding work. They are barely covering their monthly expenses.

I have to ask my colleagues: Do your constituents feel more economically secure than they did 10 years ago?

Since these cuts took place, we have gone from a balanced Federal budget to troubling deficits. We have seen the middle class weaken, and we have experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The billions we have given in handouts to the super rich have been major contributors to all of those realities.

Today, we have a historic opportunity to support the middle class, to show real Americans that we as Members of Congress are hearing their frustrations and their anger. We can stand up today and say that we are going to help the vast majority of Americans, that we care deeply about the economic security of the middle class and that, for once, Congress is going to act in the best interest of the middle class.

I strongly stand behind H.R. 4853, extending the tax cuts for middle class families and businesses who make up to $250,000. They need a break, and we should be doing even more for them. It is simply outrageous to suggest that we should hold these tax cuts hostage in order to continue a failed policy that has weakened our economy, has placed a bigger burden on working families and has only been effective in making the rich richer. I urge all of my colleagues to support middle class Americans and to vote for the underlying bill.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from North Haven, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the very thoughtful statement of my friend and Rules Committee colleague, I'm reminded of--and as I looked at news reports this morning, I guess I should say--as I listen to her statement and then look at the reports that we have this morning, I'm reminded of the 1992 Presidential campaign. And I would like to point to two very famous quotes from that 1992 Presidential campaign.

First, in the general election you will recall that Bill Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush and Ross Perot all ran against each other. I know the Speaker pro tempore understands very well, coming from Texas, that that was a fascinating campaign 18 years ago. And there was a very famous Vice-Presidential debate. And in that debate, the great, highly decorated Admiral James Stockdale, who I was happy before his passing to have as a good friend, famously began the debate by saying, Who am I, and why am I here?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we already have reports this morning that the negotiators have come together and decided there will be probably a 2- year extension of the effort to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans over the next 2 years. And in light of that, we are now resorting to a little more than a political ploy saying, well, we've all come together and agreed that we don't want increased taxes on middle income Americans, and so what we should do is let's vote for this and agree on it when, in fact, we're arguing that we should not increase taxes on any Americans.

Now to my second quote from the 1992 Presidential campaign. Senator Paul Tsongas, whose widow, Niki, serves very well here in the House, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, said very famously, and I quoted him, and she corrected the quote when I told her that I quoted him widely, I quoted him as follows: Senator Tsongas in the 1992 Presidential campaign when he was challenging Bill Clinton in the primary said, The problem with my Democratic Party is that they love employees but they hate employers. And Mrs. Tsongas reminded me that he apparently said, You can't love employees without loving employers. Well, either way, it's very clear that when you look at where we are, it gets back to that famous Lincoln line: you can't lift up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. And so all we're saying is that as we look at the challenges that we're facing today, focusing on job creation and economic growth is something that we should do.

And I believe that every Democrat and every Republican in this institution clearly wants to see our economy get back on track. They want to see us grow. They want to see us emerge. No one wants to see the United States of America diminished to the level that was predicted by Dave Cote, a member of the debt commission, the head of Honeywell, who in his statement yesterday said that at the rate we are going, the United States of America will become, in fact, a second-rate Nation. No one, no Democrat or Republican, wants that to happen. And so why don't we use empirical evidence that will prove that we can take a course that will get this economy back on track.

Now, my friend says that we have a cost of $700 billion. If we fail to increase taxes on those small businesses and those who are upper income wage earners, a $700 billion cost is what is claimed. In fact, if you talk to economist after economist, as I have, that is, in fact, not the case. Just yesterday a very prominent economist met with a number of Members of this body pointing to the fact that if you do, if you do, Mr. Speaker, actually keep those taxes low, we will actually see an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

And I point to that again, as I have time and again here. I believe we should be utilizing the bipartisan--the bipartisan model, put forward first by a great Democratic President. We will

mark the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. He was elected 50 years ago. On January 20, there is going to be a great celebration here in this Capitol marking the 50th anniversary of the great inaugural speech, which many of us have been quoting since we were children, of John F. Kennedy.

And we should be utilizing the model put forward by Ronald Reagan, who on February 6 of next year will mark his 100th birthday. And that economic model is one which says that making sure that we reduce marginal tax rates will actually grow the economy and create an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

So, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we are today, you have economists from even on the left who will say--even Keynesian economists--that the notion in a down economy--and we all know we have a 9\1/2\ percent unemployment rate and we heard the sad news about housing sales that came out this morning--we all know that in a down economy, even the Keynesian economists will say that increasing taxes is a prescription for failure. It actually undermines the potential for economic growth.

Now, we had quite a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, when we brought this measure up, and the distinguished ranking member soon-to-be chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Houston, Mr. Brady, referred to what was going on here as political theater. I said that I believe that to be very generous. This is sleight of hand, a political ploy. There are all kinds of pejoratives that can be used to describe the process that we have here.

We have a closed rule, as my friend said, and I argued that I'm for an open rule, which is what I'm often arguing for, and we hope to be able to have that in the 112th Congress as often as possible, but I argued for a modified closed rule, a modified closed rule for consideration of this measure.

Now, what would that mean, Mr. Speaker? If we were to have a modified closed rule, it would mean that we would simply allow this House to have a vote, which is under the present structure before us going to be denied, a vote that has been requested by 31 Democrats and all Republicans. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could, in fact, have a strong bipartisan vote in this House to extend, to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans at this time. And this rule would allow that.

I offered an amendment that would simply say, okay, let's just provide the ranking member, Mr. Camp, of the Ways and Means Committee, a chance to offer one substitute which would basically mean we are not going to increase taxes on small businesses, and we are not going to increase taxes on any Americans. I offered that amendment, and on a party-line vote it was rejected.

It was fascinating, Mr. Speaker, to hear the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my very good friend, Sandy Levin, say that making sure we don't increase taxes on middle income Americans is something we can all agree on. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we can agree on that. But I think it is very evident that this House could, with a majority vote, ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans during these very troubling, difficult economic times.

So I would argue that I think it's very important for us, as an institution, to realize that it's really a joke that has been put before us, tragically, during a time when the American people are hurting. I have an unemployment rate in part of the area I'm privileged to represent in Southern California, Mr. Speaker, that is in excess of 15 percent. We have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest State of the Union, the largest, most important State of the Union, the State of California, we have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. People are hurting. And so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow Americans is something that we have a responsibility to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and allow us to let the House work its will and have what I am totally convinced would be a strong, strong vote in favor of ensuring that we don't increase taxes on any Americans.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield on that point?

I will tell you about the 12 years we were in the majority, we did often provide substitutes. So all we are asking for, as I said, all I asked for on this measure is not an open rule, a modified closed rule, which would have provided simply one bite at the apple, one alternative, which is out of respect to the Democrats in this House who would very much like to have a chance to vote to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any American.

I thank my friend for yielding.

If the gentlelady will yield, I was simply quoting the late Senator Paul Tsongas. It wasn't my quote. I was simply quoting Senator Tsongas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to both of my colleagues who are both good friends of mine that as I listen to the arguments that have been put forward, the standard old class warfare, us versus them, rich versus poor, is an argument that has failed for years and years and years. I think all we need to do is look at the November 2 election. There was a rejection of this divisive tone which we regularly hear around here: the haves and the have-nots.

The fact of the matter is any Member of this House who votes in favor of the measure that is going to be before us is voting for a tax increase. They are voting in favor of increasing taxes on American investors and small businesses in this country. There is all kinds of dispute about this: how many are small businesses, 2 percent. We have evidence that it is substantially higher than that. But if there are any small businesses that are out there trying to create jobs and this policy of increasing taxes undermines them and inhibits their ability to say to a person in this country who is seeking a job opportunity that they can't have it because of this burden that is being inflicted, this is clearly wrong.

Now, again, on the notion of this $700 billion, this $700 billion, the cost, and we are exacerbating the deficit, that is preposterous. If we can get people with a 9.4 percent unemployment rate, 9.6 percent, as I said, in my State, 12.5 percent unemployment rate, if we can get people from the unemployment rolls onto the working rolls, that in and of itself is evidence that we will increase the flow of revenue to the Federal treasury.

Why? We'll diminish the cost of unemployment benefits, and we will have people who are working as productive members of society who are paying taxes. So this $700 billion figure is a ridiculous one.

Mr. Speaker, I will say again: Any Member of this House who votes in favor of the measure that is before us is going to be voting to increase taxes on working Americans, and it is just plain wrong.

Let me just close again by saying that, when I used the term ``political theater,'' I was quoting the very thoughtful ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means, Mr. Brady, who came before us in the Rules Committee and said, This is political theater.

Why? There are reports today that the negotiators from the White House and both Houses of Congress have come to an agreement that we are going to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans for at least 2 years. Those are the reports that we have that have come out. So we are here on the House floor, denying this institution an opportunity to vote on a proposal like that.

We in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, simply said, Gosh, since 31 Democrats have signed a letter saying they believe it would be a mistake to increase taxes on any Americans, the House should have a chance to vote on that.

I offered that proposal upstairs last night in the Rules Committee. A party-line vote.

The Democrats said, Oh, no. We're not going to allow what would clearly be a majority of this House, I believe, if we were to actually have a vote, to work its will. We are going to resort to legerdemain and not allow a motion to recommit.

This bill before us, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the airport and airway bill. It's basically the FAA bill. They did that to deny even an opportunity for a motion to recommit. Now, I know that's all inside baseball stuff, but it's inside baseball stuff that led the American people to cast the votes that they did on November 2, because it was a year ago last June when this ``read the bill'' measure came forward, when we had the 300-page amendment dropped in our laps at 3 o'clock in the morning in the Rules Committee, and we didn't have a chance to read it. So the American people started looking at what takes place in this institution, and on November 2, they rejected it.

Well, with what we are doing here today, it is obviously an indication that this majority that is now in charge is tone deaf. They don't understand the message that the American people sent, because they have spent time looking here at what is going on, and that is why we have focused on increasing transparency, disclosure, and accountability.

So, as they have done that, they've said, Don't do the kinds of things that you are contemplating doing right now.

The bottom line is, by resorting to legerdemain, we are going to end up increasing taxes on working Americans.

I say, in closing, Mr. Speaker, that any Member of this House who votes in favor of this measure is voting to increase taxes on the men and women in this country who are out there saving, investing, and working to create jobs for our fellow Americans, and it is just plain wrong. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1638, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National GEAR UP Day.

As subcommittee chairman for Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the father of the GEAR UP program, for his outstanding leadership and unwavering commitment to ensure that low-income students enter and succeed in postsecondary education as well as in life.

I am proud to have joined Congressman Fattah on the Education Committee back in 1998 to be an original cosponsor of this great GEAR UP program that he introduced.

In supporting the goals and ideals of National GEAR UP Day, it is important that we recognize national teachers and counselors and program staff for their tireless work on behalf of our neediest students. Throughout the year, these extraordinary individuals provide essential college preparatory services to over 670,000 students in over 5,000 schools across 46 States, as well as in the District of Columbia, and American Samoa, Micronesia, and Puerto Rico.

I am extremely proud of GEAR UP students in the Rio Grande Valley of south Texas for setting ambitious career goals and for making their education a top priority. Our region serves approximately 18,000 students, and these young people are studying hard, taking rigorous courses, graduating from high school, and preparing themselves to earn a college degree.

In my congressional district, we are fortunate to have talented and committed individuals who have made GEAR UP a huge success. I personally want to thank Tina Atkins, the director of the Region 1 GEAR UP program, as well as Dr. Martha Cantu, director of the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg for their GEAR UP program, and business and community leaders in our region who have done a terrific job in educating and encouraging GEAR UP students and their families to reach for the stars.

On March 30, 2010, President Obama signed the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 into law. With the enactment of this law, President Obama and Congress are taking bold steps to ensure accessibility and affordability in higher education.

These investments in education will undoubtedly provide thousands of GEAR UP students throughout the country with the financial aid and support they need to succeed in college.

As our Nation strives to build a world-class educational system, to increase graduation rates at all levels and to lead the world in the proportion of college graduates by the year 2020, it is critical that we continue to invest in successful Federal programs like GEAR UP.

Today, I urge my colleagues and our Nation to support H.R. 1638 and to encourage greater numbers of low-income students to pursue their dreams by supporting the goals and ideals of a National GEAR UP Day.

I thank the gentlelady and I thank her colleague for their support for this resolution.

GEAR UP continues, as from its inception, to have bipartisan support. On National GEAR UP Day, we had Governors like Haley Barbour from Mississippi and Governors throughout the country claim GEAR UP Days in their State. We had mayors and school superintendents and college associations all across our country celebrate the great achievements of young people who have been a part of this program and the adults who have worked with them.

The Federal Government partners with States and with higher education institutions in what I call an elongated conversation with young people over the course of 6 years. And in this Congress, we reauthorized GEAR UP and we have now added a seventh year. GEAR UP has proven to be successful over its first decade of work, given the research that has been done, and it has shown that there has been a remarkable success across the 40-plus States, and now 46 States. In communities of every stripe, GEAR UP has worked to increase the number of young people graduating from high school, taking rigorous courses, and going on to college.

We saw a multiday series in The Washington Post focusing on students in Virginia, and thankfully going to colleges in Pennsylvania, through GEAR UP. I have visited GEAR UP youngsters in Wichita, Kansas, and Oklahoma City and California, all across our land. It is an amazing and extraordinary feat to see young people who statistically others would have written off, but now, because of the work of the GEAR UP program and because of their own work and parental involvement, they have been written back in.

The President has said we need to return our country to leadership in the world by 2020 with the number of adults with a college degree. We now are ninth in the world with the number of our young people graduating from college. This is an important program. It is the largest early college program in our country and in our country's history. It began with bipartisan support, and it continues to have that support because it is locally administered. It is a partnership program involving higher education institutions in partnership with middle schools and high schools and community and civic associations. It has worked well in Native American communities and rural communities and urban cities. It has helped in terms of youngsters who have English as a second language.

My great partner in this, Congressman Hinojosa, who will be speaking, and many others in this Congress have been strong supporters of GEAR UP. I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady for yielding me an appreciable amount of time, and I thank them for their support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1638) supporting the goals and ideals of National GEAR UP Day.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on House Resolution 1638 into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1638 which recognizes the goals and ideals of National GEAR UP Day, celebrated on September 29, 2010. GEAR UP, or Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, was created by Congress in 1998 to help increase the number of low-income and underserved students who are prepared to succeed in postsecondary education.

This year, the GEAR UP program provided college prep services to over 670,000 students in over 5,000 schools across 46 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Micronesia, and Puerto Rico.

National GEAR UP Day, sponsored by the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships, is an opportunity for us to recognize the continued success of GEAR UP programs nationwide. It guarantees an entire cohort of students beginning no later than the seventh grade and follows that group through high school.

GEAR UP funds are also used to provide college scholarships to low- income students. Students participating in the GEAR UP program, Mr. Speaker, are encouraged in a variety of ways to enter and complete postsecondary education. They may visit local postsecondary institutions and survey classes that interest them, learn about financial aid and scholarship opportunities, or meet with a counselor for career planning.

I want to thank Representative Fattah for introducing this resolution and, once again, express my support for House Resolution 1638, which celebrates National GEAR UP Day.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the author of this resolution and the author of GEAR UP.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Fattah and Representative Hinojosa for their participation in introducing this resolution.

Once again, I want to express my support for House Resolution 1638, which celebrates National GEAR UP Day--a chance for all of us to recognize the GEAR UP program's accomplishments and its success in increasing the accessibility of college for those students who need it the most. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.