Floor Statements

I want to thank my colleague for yielding, and I thank you for your kind words of success. It is an honor to have been chosen as the new majority leader. Some of you can recall some words that I said earlier. When I won, I felt like the dog who caught the car. I have my teeth on the bumper. Maybe they are just around the bumper today.

I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. The House will have a district work period next week. But when we come back and in the weeks following, up to the Easter recess, I would expect that the House will deal with the concurrent resolution on the budget. I believe that the House and Senate will receive today a supplemental spending request from the White House for the ongoing efforts in Iraq.

We expect the supplemental will include money for the ongoing efforts in Iraq and the war on terror. We also believe that the request will include money for the ongoing efforts in Katrina and Rita, in the cleanup efforts in the gulf area. Sometime over the next month or so, 6 weeks, we expect that we will be taking that up.

We also believe that when we get back, maybe in the first week that we are back, a possible motion to go to conference on the pension bill.

The tax reconciliation conference is under way. It is hard to predict when they will come to an agreement, but I would be surprised if it were the week that we came back.

That is a bit unclear as of yet. It would be nice if we could do it that second week in March, but I think it is a little too early to predict exactly when it will be on the floor.

Clearly, sometime in the coming weeks, but I think the Appropriations Committee will have their hands full looking at the request, going through all of the items in the request. I think we would like to have it through the House before the Easter recess, but, again, they have got an awful lot of work to do in the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

As the gentleman knows, the Senate has taken up the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. When the Senate completes their work it will come here, and I think those of us in the House never want to predict the speed at which the Senate may or may not move this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 345) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, February 20,

2006, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 345, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting the Honorable Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister of the Republic of Italy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, March 1, 2006.

Let me thank my colleagues for their support and for this big job, and it is a big job.

I think all of the Members who I have worked with over the years know how I operate. I am a Republican. I believe in Republican principles. But this is the people's House. It is to represent all of the people. And while I want my party to win every day, I want us to win fairly and honestly. And so I will say to all of you, I am going to do my best for the people's House. You may not agree with every decision we make every day, but I think all of you know in the marrow of my bones I believe in fairness.

As I have said before, when you have 11 brothers and sisters and your dad owned a bar, you have learned a lot of lessons along the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, if this bill was anywhere near as difficult and as bad as my friends would have described, there would be no Member of the House who would vote for it.

Now, I think all of us realize that our Nation is going broke. You would argue that we are not taxing enough. Most of my colleagues and I would argue that we are spending too much. And if you look at Federal revenues over the last 10 years, 20 years, you will see that there is never an increasing rise in Federal revenues.

The problem we have is we have a spending problem. We are spending money that we do not have year in and year out, and we are passing those bills on to our kids and theirs. It is not fair. We decided we are going to take a bite at the apple, and we are going to try to do something about it.

Before us we are going to have about a $41 billion deficit reduction program. It is going to reform many Federal programs to provide savings to reduce the budget deficit. In my committee we are going to take $16.2 billion of reforms to lower that deficit, about $3.6 billion of that will come in the form of strengthening the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, raising the premiums on employers who pay into that system, and making some other changes that will produce those savings.

The higher education side is rather unique. We are able to increase benefits for American students while at the same time reducing and reforming those programs to save $12.6 billion. We keep the current law fixed interest rates into the foreseeable future for the loan program. The consolidation program stays at the same interest rates. We phased out origination fees for those in the Pell program from 3 percent down to 1 percent over the next 5 years. We increase loan limits for students, freshmen, up to $3,500 per year in guaranteed programs. The second year, we increase it to $4,500. We eliminate the single holder rule. We increase loan rates and loan volumes for graduate students. At the same time, we reform the programs and the fees that we pay to lenders. We eliminate the 9.5 percent loans and eliminate recycling. We eliminate floor income, we reduce the insurance rate for the lenders from 98 to 97 percent, and we give guarantors incentives for rehabilitating loans rather than to put them into the consolidation program. This is a good deal for American students.

On top of all that, there is $3.7 billion in this bill to start an academic competitive grant for Pell-eligible students who are interested in math, science, and specialized languages. We all know that we have problems with enough mathematicians and scientists in America, and this program is aimed at Pell-eligible students trying to encourage them into math and science and giving them significant grants in their junior and senior year to make sure they graduate as mathematicians and scientists.

All of this is being done on behalf of students, while saving, producing savings of $12.6 billion to help reduce the deficit.

Now, I think all of us have a job to do when it comes to reducing this deficit. Again, my colleagues want to raise taxes. I do not think that we have a revenue problem; I think we have a spending problem. And I think reforming these Federal programs, especially in a way where we can provide additional benefits for students, is a win-win for the American people. It is a good bill. We ought to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4579) to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend by one year provisions requiring parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4579.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill will extend provisions under ERISA, the Public Health Services Act and the Internal Revenue Code regarding mental health parity for 1 year until December 31, 2006.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 17, 2005.

The Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: I write regarding our mutual

understanding for the consideration of H.R. 4579, a bill

amending the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),

the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and the Internal

Revenue Code (IRC) to extend certain provisions on mental

health benefits. The provisions of this bill amending ERISA

are within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on

Education and the Workforce. The provisions of this bill

amending PHSA are within the sole jurisdiction of the

Committee on Energy and Commerce. The provisions of this bill

amending IRC are within the sole jurisdiction of the

Committee on Ways and Means.

As you and I understand the importance of extending the

provisions to each of these Acts, we have agreed to the

scheduling of this bill for consideration in the House of

Representatives. However, I agree that we have done so only

with the understanding that this procedural route should not

be construed to prejudice the jurisdictional interest and

prerogatives of the Committee on Education and the Workforce,

the Committee on Ways and Means, or the Committee on Energy

and Commerce, respectively, on these provisions or any other

similar legislation, and will not be considered as precedent

for consideration of matters of jurisdiction to each

committee in the future. Finally, I would support your

request for appointment of conferees on the provisions in

your Committee's jurisdiction should a conference arise with

the Senate.

A copy of our exchange of letters will be inserted in the

Congressional Record on this bill. Thank you for your

consideration and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his moving testimony today on the issue of mental health. I would be the first to agree that the mental health parity bill that we have will now, as Mr. George Miller of California says, and has for the last 10 years been an important step in the right direction.

Is it enough for most people? Probably not. And I think that all of us are aware that Congress and the American people have been in this debate for a long time. We have 45 million Americans who have no health insurance at all, and we know that every time we mandate a benefit on employers' insurance policies, we raise the cost of those policies. And what is the result of higher health insurance policies? More uninsured Americans.

So there is a balance, and I realize that people want more mental health coverage. The debate will continue here in the Congress; but in the meantime, I think it is important for us to make sure that the mandate that is in the current law that does provide some coverage for mental health illness that is going to expire will do so unless we extend this provision. And that is all the bill before us does is extend the provisions already in law to make sure that at least there is a foundation of coverage in the law as people have come to expect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4525) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4525.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill that extends the Higher Education Act of 1965 for 3 months until March 31, 2006. While the committee has passed the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it is not completed. The Senate concluded their Higher Education Act amendments in their reconciliation bill, and we expect part of this higher education reauthorization to occur in the reconciliation process. But there will be a balance of it left that does need to be dealt with, and I am hopeful that early next year Congress will, in fact, complete the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act authorization.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Washington for yielding me this time.

And I appreciate the concern that my colleague from Massachusetts has raised. Now, if this bill was as bad as the gentleman has tried to define it, why would we bring it to the floor? Why would any Member of this House seek to bring a bill to the floor that would hurt American workers?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is well aware that there is a crisis in America when it comes to the issue of protecting people's pensions. And I think all of us on both sides of the aisle have a responsibility to work hard, to develop legislation that will, in fact, protect American workers and retirees in the pensions that they have been promised.

Over the last 5 or 6 years, I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours meeting with stakeholders from companies that offer plans voluntarily to union members and others, trying to craft a bill. We have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle in order to develop this legislation.

So what are the goals here? The goals here are, very simply, to make sure that those companies who offer defined benefit pension plans continue to keep them. Secondly, for companies who make promises to their workers, there ought to be some insurance that they will keep the commitments that they have made to their workers. And, thirdly, to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that ensures that these pension payments will be made, we need to strengthen the financial condition at the PBGC to avert a possible taxpayer bailout in the future.

What does this underlying bill do? It will, in fact, ensure that there is more money contributed to these pension plans, whether it is restricting the use of credit balances, whether it is using a more accurate interest rate to determine what those obligations are, whether it is closing down the amount of averaging that goes on. There are a number of provisions that we will talk about when we get into this bill that will strengthen these pension plans by moving more money into them.

The second part of this is to reduce the long-term exposure to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that is, in fact, facing a deficit. We not only increase premiums paid by employers to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as part of strengthening them; but long term, by requiring companies to fully fund their plans at 100 percent, we will, in fact, reduce the exposure of the PBGC long term to a taxpayer bailout.

Now, we are going to hear a lot of debate today as this bill comes up from those who have their own views as to how this should work, and I would ask my colleagues let us not make perfect the enemy of the good. We have a very good, sound bill that we are bringing to the floor, supported by many employer groups, supported by virtually every major labor group in America as well. There is a finely tuned balance in this bill, and I do, in fact, believe that it will pass today with broad bipartisan support.

Now let me address one other issue. And that issue is the fact that there is no substitute today. As the gentleman knows, in the Rules Committee last night and in a letter to the Rules Committee yesterday, I asked them to make a substitute in order. There was a question posed to me last night about supporting such a measure. And I said I would support not only amendments, but also a substitute as long as it did not contain tax issues in there that were unrelated or dealt with the tax side of this bill. I do not know whether the substitute had these or not. But all I can say is that there is no one in this House who has argued more for a fair, open debate than I have.

I have been in the minority. I have been in your position. I have made the arguments that you are making, and I do believe that when we stymie debate in the House, we short circuit our constitutional responsibilities.

I am sorry there is not a substitute here. I am not sure why, but I am sure there are very good reasons. Whether there are tax issues involved in what you were offering, I do not know.

But the fact is that it is a good underlying bill. We are going to have a very healthy debate about it today. And I would urge my colleagues, on behalf of American workers, that we have a responsibility to pass this bill now.

Is it perfect? I am sure it is not, but I do believe when this bill passes here today with bipartisan support, we will get to a conference with the Senate where we will hammer out the differences between the House and Senate bill. But the longer this House waits to move this bill, the longer we make arguments, that we make perfect the enemy of the good, the more we are jeopardizing the retirement security of American workers. And I believe that we have to act now, get ourselves to conference, and get a bill passed that brings comprehensive reform to our pension laws.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 602, I call up the bill (H.R. 2830) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the pension funding rules, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2830.

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

Madam Speaker, I will put this as bluntly as I can: our Nation's pension laws are outdated and broken and placing at risk the retirement security of millions of American workers. Today, we have an opportunity to change this by voting for the most comprehensive reforms to worker pension laws in more than a generation.

The Pension Protection Act is the outcome of one of the most thorough and remarkable legislative processes I have seen during my years in the House. On June 4, 2003, the Committee on Education and the Workforce held the first of nearly a dozen hearings on traditional pension plans, and from these hearings they have covered a broad set of issues, ranging from what is broken to who it has impacted to how we should go about fixing it. And, today, we stand ready to debate and vote on the product of those 30 months of deliberations.

There are three key strengths of this bill, and I would like to highlight each of those for my colleagues. It is a balanced approach, it is comprehensive in nature, and it is a benefit to American taxpayers.

First, the bill's greatest strength is its balanced approach to the pension crisis that we face. While some are calling for suffocating pension funding rules which would place an incredible burden on employers who voluntarily offer retirement benefits, our bill makes certain not to tighten the rules so much that employers leave the defined benefit system altogether.

While others call for relaxation of pension rules, our bill ensures that employers and unions keep their promises to workers and retirees who are counting on their pension benefits. In short, our bill aims to shore up the traditional defined benefit pension system to which we and our parents have grown accustomed so our children and grandchildren might have a chance to be part of it as well.

The second major strength of the Pension Protection Act is inherently comprehensive in nature. As you can see on the chart that is next to me, the measure would ensure that pensions are fully funded to restore worker and retiree confidence; it has enhanced disclosure requirements so that workers and retirees are no longer kept in the dark about the health of their pensions; it would improve the financial condition of the Federal agency charged with ensuring some 30,000 private pension plans; it would reform outdated laws that deny workers access to professional and secure investment advice while providing even more workers with 401(k)-type plans; and it would end sweetheart deals like those we have seen at some airlines and other corporations that have terminated their plans in which executives enjoy a windfall of cash while workers and retirees are left wondering about their futures.

Incidentally, these five reforms are only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more that this bill offers to workers and retirees, far more than this chart could ever tell us.

Finally, yet another strength of this measure is its benefit to American taxpayers. Each of us remembers all too well the savings & loan bailout of more than a decade ago. By enacting the Pension Protection Act, we can be more confident that history will not repeat itself with regard to our pension system.

As you can see on this second chart, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which ensures nearly 30,000 private worker pensions, is in dire financial condition. With some $450 billion in pension plan underfunding among financially weak companies looming on the horizon, the PBGC's debt could balloon even further than its current $23 billion.

Even though no taxpayer funds fund the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, could American taxpayers be called upon to bail out the agency if its financial condition continues to deteriorate? I think so. That is why the Pension Protection Act includes responsible increases to employer-paid premiums for the first time since 1991, along with substantial reforms to place the defined benefit system on more solid ground. For taxpayers who may be left holding the bag otherwise, I think this is good news.

Madam Speaker, throughout this process I have made every effort to include my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And even after my Democratic friends voted ``present,'' that is right, they did not vote ``no,'' they voted ``present,'' when our committee approved the bill back in June, I was hopeful that they would join us and the ever- growing coalition of labor and employer groups in support of these reforms.

However, some of my colleagues have offered nothing more than rhetoric based on quirky accounting schemes and purposely skewed modeling in an effort to characterize the Pension Protection Act in a negative manner. I expect these hollow and misleading arguments will continue today as they seek to detract from a debate which they have largely been absent from for the last 30 months. It is my sincere hope, however, that many of my Democrat colleagues will look beyond the rhetoric and support these long-overdue reforms. This bill definitely deserves bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, the Pension Protection Act would not be before us if it were not for the work of my friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas; the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee chair and vice chair, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kline; my friend from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, a committee colleague who worked tirelessly to garner support for the bill; and all of the others on my committee and throughout the House who understand how imperative it is to reform our Nation's outdated pension laws for the benefit of workers, retirees, and taxpayers alike. I thank them for their efforts to bring this bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Employer-Employee Subcommittee of the Education and Workforce Committee.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

I will be happy to do so.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me thank my colleague from Georgia for his work on this issue for lo these many months. I know that my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has similar concerns, and I am happy to yield to him.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, as has been the case all year, the lines of communication between those of us that are interested in this, both on and off the committee, and those on the other side of the aisle as well, the lines of communication are open and will remain open.

As we move into conference, the process, I remain committed to ensuring that the concerns of all stakeholders involved are addressed in a bipartisan fashion as we complete action on comprehensive reforms in an expeditious manner.

I remain committed, as I believe both of my colleagues do, that airlines do, and that we need to find a solution that will allow airlines to maintain their plans and ensure employees of both plans are adequately funded.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to my colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to my colleague that I agree with his comments regarding the importance of shutdown benefits to workers who may suddenly find that the plant for which they have worked, for 20 years in your father's case, happens to be closed.

I think the gentleman knows that I am troubled by the fact that shutdown benefits are often paid from a company's pension plan, despite the fact that they are not technically retirement benefits in the true sense of the word. These benefits resemble severance-type pay benefits, and more importantly, these benefits are not funded.

But I want to make clear, for the benefit of my colleagues, that our bill does not prohibit shutdown benefits, as some have suggested.

Instead, with further modifications that we have made over the last few days, it merely requires that shutdown benefits be paid from corporate assets and not pension plan assets, if the pension plan is funded at below 80 percent. I think this is an important change, and I believe it will help restore the financial integrity of this important benefit.

My colleague from Ohio correctly notes that we still have work to do on this issue of shutdown benefits, specifically as it relates to the steel industry, and as such, I pledge to him and other Members who may have an interest in this as well that on this issue we will continue to work on this matter throughout this legislative process.

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

I assume so.

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

As I listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have to tell you that I am confused. Some of them say the rules that we are proposing here are too tough and are going to drive employers out of the pension business, while we have some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying the rules are not tight enough and we are going to create more deficits at the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation. Ladies and gentlemen, I think the bill is just right.

Yes, these are better rules that will require companies to better fund their plans. They certainly are better than current law. But I do not believe they go to the point of driving companies out of the defined benefit system.

My good friend from California believes we are going to drive up the deficit. Now, if the rules were not strong enough, I would not have had virtually every employer in America who has a defined benefit plan beating on my office door complaining about the rules we were proposing. I would not have had every labor organization talking to me about how do we get this right.

The fact is, if you look at the chart that we have here, plans must meet a 100 percent funding target. That is not the law today. If they are in the 80-90 percent range, it is good enough. But then as soon as the market turns down or the industry has a bump in the road, it is not long before they are under 60 and in deep trouble. So requiring plans to be 100 percent funded, I think, is a very good idea.

Having an interest rate that is commensurate with their liabilities is something that we have not done ever. We have had one interest rate used to calculate the plan's liabilities. Under this modified yield curve proposal, they will have three different interest rates to use based on the longevity of their workforce, 0-5 years, 5-20, and those employees who will retire after 20 years. It will give us a more accurate reflection of the true cost of those plans.

Third, it requires funding shortfalls to be erased over 7 years. We want to give companies time to go from the current rules to these more responsible rules; and if we do not have a sufficient transition time, what is going to happen is that we are going to create real havoc in the marketplace.

Fourth, it restricts unlimited use of credit balances. We all know that the current rules about credit balances are, frankly, some of the most irresponsible public policy that I have seen. Beginning to restrict the use of those credit balances will, in fact, strengthen these plans.

Fifth, it curves benefit increases for underfunded plans. We all know there are plans that were underfunded, severely underfunded, and yet increasing benefits at the same time. That is not fair to workers who are being given promises that someone has no intention of keeping.

Last, it shores up the finances of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

All of these will bring more funding to company pension plans, it will bring more funding to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and put our pension system for American workers on a stronger foundation.

Why else do I think we are just right? I have a long list of business organizations that are supporting this bill and a long list of labor organizations that are supporting this bill. It is a balanced bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Let me thank my colleague and my friend and classmate, Mr. Camp, for yielding me time, and thank all of my colleagues for what I think has been a very healthy debate today about how we strengthen America's pension system.

We have heard Members argue that the bill that we are bringing before us is too difficult, that we will force companies out of pension plans and leave their employees hanging; while others

have argued that the rules are not tough enough, and we are keeping the door open to irresponsible practices.

I truly do believe that we have a bill that is balanced, that will not push employers who have these plans out of the system and will protect American workers who have been promised these benefits.

If we do not act, we know exactly what is going to happen: Millions and millions more Americans are going to lose an opportunity for a defined benefit pension plan, and millions of Americans who already have one are going to be at risk that they will not have their plan. So Congress must act.

Not only did we deal with single-employer pension plans, but we have not talked much about multiple-employer pension plans that you find traditionally in the trucking industry, the food industry and others. And while they have not been talked about much today in this debate and the administration did not propose changes, there are serious changes to the multi-employer pension system in this plan that will help strengthen that system.

Those plans, by and large, are healthier than single-employer plans, and we have labor and management on both sides in the multi-employer sector come together to put rules in place so that their plans can never get into a very weakly funded position. I am glad they are in the bill.

Lastly, let me point out that there are large numbers of groups supporting this bill. Every major labor organization, with the exception of several, is supporting this bill. Many in the management sector in every large business organization is supporting this bill. Why would all of the labor organizations and the business organizations all be on board in support of this bill? Because they think it is balanced. They think it is the right thing to do, and they know that Congress needs to act.

Is everything perfect in the bill? No. As the gentleman pointed out, we have got airline relief that we will probably be talking about again soon. Our commitment is to deal with this in conference.

My colleague from Ohio talked about the need to go further on cash balance language. I certainly agree with her. There are 7 million Americans who have cash balance plans or other types of hybrid plans. We need to provide legal certainty for those who have converted to a cash balance plan so that we do not put in jeopardy the 7 million Americans counting on benefits from those plans.

We have a good bill. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the debate today on the floor is about the massive underfunding in worker pensions and the need to change the status quo. Unfortunately, what we have just been presented is what would actually make pensions less secure by preserving the status quo and putting at risk millions of American pensions.

Let me make five points. First, the motion to recommit preserves the status quo by requiring employers and union leaders to fund their plans at 90 percent or in some cases only 80 percent, instead of the 100 percent funding requirements that we have in the underlying bill. It just does not pass the straight-face test.

Second, they are preserving the status quo by continuing to allow employers to take up to 30 years to erase any funding shortfall in their plan. Pension experts agree that this increases the risk of plan termination, threatening the benefits of workers and retirees.

Third, they are preserving the status quo on unrestricted use of credit balances which mask the massive pension

plan underfunding we see today. We know that the credit balance rules that are in place today are irresponsible public policy. They must be changed if we are going to strengthen the pension system. And to allow those rules to stay in place, again, does not pass the straight-face test.

Fourth, they propose preserving the status quo by failing to incorporate the full package of multi-employer reforms that were agreed to by a broad coalition of organized labor and employer groups.

Last, they preserve the status quo by promoting uncertainty among employers if these pension benefits and workers who are relying on them maintain the current interest rate package for 2 years and then go back to the 30-year rate thereafter.

The modified yield curve in the underlying bill presents a more accurate picture of the liabilities that these plans have and should, in fact, stay in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is far more balanced. It really does strengthen American pensions, and I would urge my colleagues to reject this.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate both the gentleman from Virginia and the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, for a job well done on the Commodity Exchange Act reauthorization. This is a very important bill for the futures markets in our country. The work that was done in 2000 clearly has paid significant dividends. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act is working and it is working well. I think what we have seen over the last 5 years is nothing short of a firestorm of innovation in these markets.

Between 2000 and 2004, the volumes of futures and options contracts traded on exchanges has increased from 600 million contracts a year to more than 1.6 billion contracts per year. I think the futures industry is stronger today as a result of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act because it has allowed those markets to function without the heavy hand of government, as heavy as it used to be.

I think the bill before us makes some changes to that act. Clearly, in the Zelener case, which has been talked about, I think we take a practical approach to solving the Zelener problem.

Secondly, it follows through on promises made on CFMA by setting a date certain for risk-based portfolio margining for single stock futures and for a definition of broad-based securities indexes.

Now, my colleague before me, Mr. Graves, talked about the issue of natural gas. This provision is included in the bill, and it is there because we are hearing from farmers and consumers about the high cost of natural gas. Unfortunately, the provision would not lower the cost of fertilizer or heating oil or natural, and it may have the reverse effect. I have concerns about the language there. I think it is very intrusive and could be overly far reaching. I would hope as this bill goes to conference that my colleagues will take a close look at the natural gas provisions so we do not overreach like we did back in the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to offer relief to the families, workers, and schools in the gulf coast region working to rebuild after the devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I'd like to thank the author of this bill, my friend from Louisiana, Representative Jindal, for his tireless efforts on behalf of his constituents who have been through so much.

This bill, the Hurricane Regulatory Relief Act, is about cutting through the red tape and easing the burdens on those who are working to rebuild. It provides commonsense flexibility for teachers and schools; it encourages community-based services and eases access to child care; and it provides assistance for displaced workers.

For 1 year, the bill will ease the burdens on teachers and schools to ensure they can focus on education instead of focusing on compliance with burdensome rules. This includes easing funding requirements so States and schools have greater flexibility to use resources to meet the needs of their students.

It will also expand opportunities for qualified teachers to serve displaced students, and will expand a pilot project to affected States to reduce the paperwork burden on special education teachers. Furthermore, the bill encourages States to ease restrictions on charter schools so that they may play an active role in the relief effort.

The Hurricane Regulatory Relief Act includes steps to make it easier for college students to transfer from one institution to another so they can continue to make progress toward a degree, and it improves the outreach process to help disadvantaged students learn about the financial aid opportunities that may be available.

To help displaced families get back on their feet, the bill expands access to child care services by easing Federal requirements for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and providing guidance, technical assistance, flexibility, and resources to ensure displaced children have access to the Head Start early childhood program.

The bill also provides greater flexibility within the Community Services Block Grant program, which provides an array of services and assistance through Community Action Agencies.

Our efforts to cut red tape don't stop there. The bill will provide financial flexibility for displaced workers, reducing bureaucratic burdens to ensure displaced workers seeking emergency funds from their personal retirement plans may access them more quickly and easily.

Finally, the bill also works to enhance safety and reduce bureaucracy in relief projects.

Mr. Speaker, this bill offers commonsense solutions to speed the relief effort by cutting through red tape and easing the regulatory burden.

Once again, I'd like to thank the sponsor of this bill, Representative Jindal, and Members on both sides of the aisle for working to aid those impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. Speaker, the Managers of the bill jointly submit this statement to explain and clarify the intent of certain provisions contained within the legislation.

With respect to amendments made to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act in Section 311 of the legislation, the Managers recognize the historic and unique nature of this disaster inflicted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and is taking the extraordinary step of authorizing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to use volunteers in light of the historic scope of that devastation.

Section 311 of the bill is intended to allow OSHA to utilize qualified safety professionals as volunteers to assist in a variety of projects targeting health and safety identified by OSHA. It is the Managers' expectation and intent that these volunteers would be qualified by virtue of experience, and would need little additional training based on their professional work experience or other recognized safety training prior to being deployed in needed areas.

With respect to Section 312's providing authority to the Secretary to purchase and distribute equipment and supplies to public or private entities engaged in projects related to worker safety, it is the intent of the Managers that these funds be use to assist in relief and recovery efforts, and not be used to pay private entities to comply with preexisting requirements or obligations under the OSH Act.

Finally, with respect to Title III, Subtitle A, the ``Pension Flexibility for Displaced Workers Act of 2005,'' it is the Managers' expectation and intention that the Secretary will exercise the authority provided under that section judiciously and upon careful consideration of the appropriateness of any waiver, suspension, or exemption authorized thereunder.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and thank him for his work on bringing this bill to the floor. He and I have talked about the idea that we ought to take all of these programs that the Federal Government has that affect disadvantaged youth and try to bring some coordination to the overall effort.

As many of us know, Congress gets in the business of duplicating programs coming from different committees and different agencies of the Federal Government. Before we know it, we have a proliferation of programs, many of them not connected to each other in any way, shape, or form.

I think the proposal brought to us by the gentleman from Nebraska creating this coordinating council really will, in fact, help us achieve what we are attempting to achieve by closer coordination of these 30 different programs.

I can go through a lot of different areas, but I can talk about the Workforce Investment Act, for example. A little different example, but I looked up, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) some 10 years ago, and we found 63 Federal job training and retraining programs scattered across the different agencies of the government that we were able to bring together under one roof to serve those who needed training and retraining. We have one-stop-shop centers now all over the country.

This is a little different example of trying to reorganize how we do what we do, well meaning, well intentioned; but when we have all of these different programs working on their own without the kind of coordination that this council would bring, I do not think we bring as much of an impact to these children who need our help as we could.

I think the goal here is pretty clear from Mr. Osborne, myself, and others that this coordinating council would be there to see that these programs are working, that they are working together to help those disadvantaged youth who need help.

I do not think there is any effort here to consolidate programs, but I think the effort here ought to be making sure that they are effective and making sure that they work together for the advantage of these disadvantaged youth who so desperately need our help. I congratulate my colleague from Nebraska for his work and ask my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) who has worked on IDEA issues for a long time; thank him for bringing this resolution to the floor today, he and Ranking Member Woolsey from California, who have brought this resolution honoring the 30 years since the passage of the first IDEA bill.

For far too long in our history, we treated people with disabilities as outside of the mainstream of American society. The opportunity to serve those children prior to the passage of IDEA in 1975 was often haphazard. Certainly there was not any organization to it, and many times these children were not in any school whatsoever. And I think passage of IDEA clearly has sent a clear signal to all parents of disabled children, all schools, that we believe that all children can learn.

Just last year, we reauthorized the IDEA law. That, along with the work that we did with No Child Left Behind, I think, presents a new paradigm for special needs children. For far too long we judged the accountability for educating those children by how many T's we could cross and how many I's we could dot. Mountains of paperwork, but no focus on the results that we were getting for those children.

Today, under No Child Left Behind and under the new IDEA law, the paradigm has shifted to one of let us measure the results that we are getting for all children, including those with special needs; and I think what we are beginning to see are improved results. Because while they may not learn at the same rate and while they may not attain the same levels, these children can learn just like all other children. So 30 years of good work, I think, is something that we should be proud of; and I appreciate the opportunity to take time and to remember how far we have come over these last 30 years.

In 1975, when Congress passed IDEA, they made a commitment, a commitment that said that we would pay up to 40 percent of the cost of educating special needs children. Over the years, the education community and others believed that the law said that we would spend 40 percent to educate special needs children. But I will remind you what the original law says and what it says today is that we will spend up to 40 percent and try to reach that.

It is really interesting that, from 1975 until the mid-1990s, Congress paid little attention to the commitment that they gave to those parents of special needs children and to educators who were obliged to follow the law, and it really has only been over the last 10 or 12 years that we have made a real commitment to funding the needs of these children.

If you go back to 1995, Congress at that time was spending $2.3 billion annually for the education of special needs children. Today, that has grown to $10.6 billion, a 360 percent increase over these last 10 years. While we have not reached the goal of getting up to 40 percent of the cost, we are about halfway there. I think we have made tremendous progress.

In 1995, we were paying about 6 percent of the cost of educating these children. So we have made great strides. Do we need to continue to do more? Yes, we do. And I think you will see another increase in funding this year as the budget process begins to come to a close. I think the commitment for Members on both sides of the aisle is

very strong to continue our commitment to increasing those funds.

Let me, lastly, remark that someone I would have hoped would have been on the floor today is not here. In 1974, there was a new Member of Congress, a member of our committee, happens to be the ranking Democrat on our committee today, George Miller. George Miller, over these last 30 years that he has been a Member of Congress, probably has exhibited more commitment to this issue and the education of children with special needs than any Member.

I think that while we are pausing to remember the great things that have happened since IDEA became law, we ought to take a moment to thank our colleague, George Miller, who, without his commitment, without his dedication to this cause, many Members of Congress may have forgotten.