Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to be here to support the bill offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline). An identical bill to this passed the last Congress 425-1.

Now, one would wonder, why do we need to be here doing this? There are children that do, in fact, have behavioral disorders, have mental health issues, other issues, and certainly teachers and school administrators have a role to play in terms of helping bring this to the attention of parents and, in many cases, urging them to seek qualified medical attention.

But what has come to our attention in a number of hearings that we have had on this issue over the last 4 or 5 years are the number of complaints from parents, grandparents and others where their children were going to be denied admission to school or denied services unless their child was put on medication.

As was noted by both of my colleagues earlier, that is a decision that should be left to the parents, and only to the parents. Certainly, school personnel and teachers can play a role in terms of helping the parents understand what is happening in the school, helping the medical professional in terms of what type of behavior is being exhibited, but, at the end of the day, parents of children ought to have the right to make that decision about whether their child should be on some prescription drug.

The bill is very simple, and I think it lays it out very clearly. Last year when we reauthorized IDEA, the special ed law, we put identical language in that law to protect the parents of special needs children. What this does is covers the rest of the children. I think it is a great step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.

I was alarmed by the United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to allow private property to be seized in the name of ``economic development.'' On June 23, 2005, the Court ruled that the City of New London, Connecticut could seize a series of privately owned homes, offer the homeowners ``just compensation'' and re-sell those properties to private entrepreneurs as part of a city-approved plan aimed at raising the land value and increasing the city's tax base. The court justified the ruling by arguing that the city had the right to seize the private property under the ``public use'' clause of the United States Constitution's 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment reads as follows:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or

indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the

land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual

service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person

be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy

of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case

to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall

private property be taken for public use, without just

compensation.

No one has ever denied the fact that in certain rare cases, a government (federal, state, or local) must exercise its Constitutionally limited power to seize land in order to complete a public project like a road, school, military base, or court house. That power is known as ``eminent domain.'' America's Founding Fathers acknowledged it as an unfortunate, but sometimes necessary, evil and it has historically been pursued in America with great reservation. According to a majority of the Court however, seizing private property in the name of ``public use'' does not necessarily mean that the property seized must be used for the public. Instead, the land seized could merely be used in the name of a ``public purpose.'' While the concurring justices never actually define what constitutes a ``public purpose,'' they write that the elected politicians on the local, state, and federal level are more than capable of making such determinations on their own. In this particular case, the ``public purpose'' happened to be a pharmaceutical research facility, a waterfront hotel, and a series of new commercial and residential buildings.

As a result of the Court's 5-4 ruling, any government body (city council, state assembly, Congress) with a good enough lawyer or simply a one vote majority can now take any citizen's private property, offer ``just compensation,'' and dispense with it as it sees fit. In other words, your property is now only your property so long as the government wants it to be.

John Adams once said, ``The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.'' Allowing a man's property to be so easily taken at the whim of a legislative body represents a complete departure from the very core value upon which America was founded--your natural human right to your property. America's Founding Fathers considered property to be the one sacred right above all others. They knew that true freedom came not from a political declaration or a legislative promise but from the ability of each and every citizen to dispense with his property as he saw fit. Those who would take that right away often try to assure us that by surrendering the freedom to control the supposedly less important aspects of our lives, we shall somehow obtain freedom in the pursuit of higher values. I could not disagree more. The ability to control your own property, whether it be your home, your car, or even a simple trinket, is not simply some marginal aspect of life which can be separated from the rest. It is the means to express your values and strive for your dreams. It is the ability to offer shape to your highest ideals and reject those that conflict. In short, it is freedom.

Now the human right to property seems relegated to a mere afterthought. The Institute for Justice, which represented the New London residents in court, released a study showing some 10,000 cases between 1998 and 2002 where local governments in 41 states used or threatened to use eminent domain to take property from one private owner and give it to another. The New York State Supreme Court forced a man off of property his family had owned for more than a hundred years to make way for the new headquarters of The New York Times. Several cities in Ohio have already seized homes in the name of ``economic development''--be it a shopping mall or a new factory. And now the highest court in the land has confirmed that this is all completely legal.

The Kelo decision merely confirmed a depressing trend where those who think ``government knows best'' gain and property rights and therefore liberty yield. I believe that government which governs best is that which governs least. I believe in property rights and the rule of the written law that is the Constitution.

I am proud to support the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. But this bill is merely a first step. The only truly effective way to stop these abuses of power is for every American citizen to remain vigilant in observing that every government official that has sworn an allegiance to uphold the written law of the Constitution remains true to his word. That fight however, begins here, today. I urge my colleagues to take the first step toward once again defending every American's basic human right to his or her property by voting for this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize National School Lunch Week. This year, the event is being held during the week of October 10-14, 2005. In honor of this event, I would like to take a moment to share with you a few facts relating to the National School Lunch Program:

President Harry Truman established the National School Lunch Program in 1946 in response to the large number of World War II recruits that were rejected due to malnutrition.

Today, the school lunch program serves more than 28 million students each day.

Just over half of those students who participate in the school lunch program receive their lunch free or at a reduced cost.

Over 92 percent of all students nationwide have access to school lunch and about 58 percent of those students participate on a given day.

The school lunch program operates in 99 percent of all public schools and 85 percent of private schools. That's a total of 99,538 public and non-profit private schools.

The National School Lunch Program is the largest of the federal child nutrition programs both in terms of spending and children served.

In fiscal year 2005, $6.8 billion was appropriated for the school lunch program.

For some children, a school lunch is the only healthy meal they eat all day. School lunches can contribute positively to children's health, and can improve academic performance by increasing children's learning capacity and lengthening their attention spans. The National School Lunch Program plays an important role in protecting the health and well-being of many of the nation's school-age children.

I commend the nation's dedicated educators, food service professionals, and most of all, parents who work to ensure the ongoing success of the National School Lunch Program, and to ensure that children have access to nutritious and balanced meals at school.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill to ensure that individuals with disabilities may gain access to the vocational rehabilitation services they need in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I thank my colleague on the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr. Boustany, for his work on this bill and other legislation to bring additional flexibility and resources to the Gulf Coast region. He and another of my Committee colleagues, Mr. Jindal, continue to work tirelessly on behalf of their constituents and all Gulf Coast residents to ensure that we act where necessary to assist in the recovery efforts.

This bill is critical for individuals with disabilities who are seeking to re-enter the workforce in the aftermath of the two hurricanes. Under the Rehabilitation Act, States must return unused vocational rehabilitation funds at the end of each fiscal year to the Rehabilitation Services Administration, RSA. The RSA then reallocates those funds to States based on the needs of their respective residents. H.R. 3864 directs the Commissioner of the RSA to give consideration to States affected by the hurricanes in this year's reallocation of those unused funds.

This bill also provides significant flexibility for States impacted by the hurricanes. Under the Rehabilitation Act, States that receive a reallocation are required to match those funds with non-federal sources. This bill provides a reasonable, one-time waiver of that requirement for States affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. This recognizes the unique circumstances faced by these States and ensures that State officials will not have their hands tied as they seek to take advantage of these additional resources.

Madam Speaker, in the month since Hurricane Katrina, the House has approved a variety of legislation to cut through bureaucratic red tape and enhance flexibility in the affected regions. We've addressed the needs of college students, workers, and their families. With this bill, we turn our attention to the needs of individuals with disabilities as well. As many of these individuals seek to return to work in and around the Gulf Coast region, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this measure to ensure they may do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to protect financial aid opportunities for students and schools affected by the recent hurricanes in the gulf coast region.

I would like to thank my friend from Louisiana, Representative Bobby Jindal, for his ongoing efforts to provide higher education assistance to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I would also like to thank Representatives Miller, Kildee, and Hinojosa for working with us in a bipartisan manner to provide critical higher education relief.

The Natural Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act protects financial aid opportunities for students and schools affected by the recent hurricanes by providing needed flexibility for the campus based aid programs.

The three campus based aid programs--Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Federal Work Study, and the Perkins Loan program--provide valuable financial assistance to low- and middle- income students.

The funds are allocated to colleges and universities, which then combine Federal funds with their own dollars and award financial aid to their students. Because the campus based aid programs are awarded to institutions and require institutional matching funds, colleges and universities impacted by the hurricanes are facing additional challenges in maintaining these programs.

The Natural Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act allows the Secretary of Education to waive the institutional matching requirements for institutions affected by the gulf coast hurricanes and for institutions whose financial aid budgets have been stretched more than anticipated as they open their doors to affected students.

This flexibility will ensure colleges and universities are still able to participate in the campus based aid programs as they work to rebuild their campuses and serve their students.

The bill also extends the deadline for the Department of Education to reallocate excess funds for these programs to provide ample time to assess the needs of all participating institutions.

Moreover, the bill allows these excess funds to be targeted to the institutions located in the affected regions or to the institutions that have accepted displaced students.

The campus based aid programs have always been aimed at meeting the needs of disadvantaged students. For the students and schools impacted by the gulf coast hurricanes, the time of need is now. This bill will provide much needed flexibility to ensure these funds are available to the students and schools that need them the most.

Once again, I would like to thank the sponsor of this bill, Representative Jindal, and members on both sides of the aisle for working quickly on this bill to protect financial aid opportunities for students and schools impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 27, 2005.

Hon. Jim Nussle,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Nussle: I am writing concerning H.R. 3863,

the ``Natural Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act,'' which is

scheduled for floor consideration today. Section 3 of the

bill designates that any provision of Section 2 affecting

receipts, budget authority, or outlays in the bill will be

for emergency purposes pursuant to the budget resolution of

this year (H. Con. Res. 95). Thus, the Committee on Education

and the Workforce shares the jurisdiction with the Committee

on the Budget on this provision.

I recognize the Committee on the Budget's jurisdictional

interest in Section 3 of the bill, but ask that you allow

H.R. 3863 to go forward. I agree that by allowing the bill to

be considered, the Committee on the Budget does not

relinquish any jurisdiction over H.R. 3863 or similar

legislation. I would also support your request to be

represented on a conference on H.R. 3863, if one should

become necessary.

Finally, I will include my letter and your response in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration of the

measure.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Utah for yielding time, and Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to act on behalf of the nearly 1 million disadvantaged children in the United States who participate in the Head Start early childhood education program every year. The bill before us, the School Readiness Act, was introduced by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my friend and colleague, and approved unanimously by the Committee on Education and the Workforce in May.

For four decades, Head Start has provided comprehensive services to help prepare low-income preschool children for success in school and in life. Unfortunately, Head Start children still enter school lagging behind their more affluent peers. If we do not address this readiness gap, Head Start children will continue to enter school without the level of preparedness that we know that they need. Another problem we have witnessed is an alarming number of financial abuses in various Head Start programs, showing that taxpayer dollars are not always being used to serve disadvantaged children and their families.

We must demand more in exchange for the money we are investing, and that is why the bill before us reforms and strengthens the Head Start program. To protect parents, children and taxpayers, the School Readiness Act subjects Head Start operators to an annual independent financial audit and requires them to file an annual financial disclosure statement that documents how Federal Head Start funds were used. These protections are a direct response to the reports of chronic financial abuse that have surfaced in recent years.

Another important component of this bill is that it will create greater competition to ensure Federal dollars are being spent wisely. The bill requires Head Start grantees that fail to meet program requirements to compete in order to continue receiving funds. This commonsense reform will fundamentally shift expectations in the Head Start program by demanding nothing less than the highest quality programs, and for the first time ever, programs that fail to meet expectations will face the possibility of losing Federal funding.

Later today we will debate an important amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), which has been a priority of mine, that will complement our efforts to introduce greater competition into the program. The amendment would help implement a reform initiative at the Department of Health and Human Services designed to address the internal weaknesses in the Head Start management structure and improve its overall effectiveness, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Lastly, I would like to note another critical issue we will consider today in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Faith-based organizations were among the first to reach out and lend a hand in service to those impacted by this disaster. It does not take a hurricane or another large-scale catastrophe to rally faith-based organizations to assist their fellow Americans each and every day. They focus on issues from job training to child care and everything in between. President Bush has called them the armies of compassion, and these armies are always on the front lines when our Nation needs them most.

Too often, the Federal Government has ignored or impeded the efforts of faith-based organizations willing to lend a helping hand in providing critical services to the neediest in our communities. The Boustany amendment will protect the rights of faith-based groups to fully participate in serving Head Start children without relinquishing their religious identities.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the group's civil liberties. Former President Bill Clinton signed four laws explicitly allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal funds, and a 1987 Supreme Court decision unanimously upheld this right. This amendment deserves the support of all of our colleagues.

I think the rule before us today is a fair rule that makes in order an array of Democrat and Republican amendments, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill to reform and reauthorize the Head Start early childhood program.

I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the author of this bill and my good friend, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). I also want to recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for their work to strengthen the Head Start program.

The School Readiness Act will introduce greater competition into the Head Start program and use that competition to leverage reforms that will result in a better program for the children Head Start was created to serve.

This bill will strengthen school readiness and increase the role of all 50 States and local communities in Head Start. It will protect children and taxpayers against the abuse and mismanagement of Head Start funds, and it will make Head Start more transparent and more accountable to parents and taxpayers.

I am pleased at the approach that this bill takes to solve the school readiness gap between Head Start children and their peers when they reach kindergarten.

There is no question that most Head Start children are better off in the program than they would have been without it. That is not in dispute here. But there is evidence that some Head Start centers could be doing an even better job of providing preschoolers with the academic foundation they need in order to succeed in school.

This bill will strengthen Head Start's academic standards by emphasizing cognitive development and the results of scientifically based research and topics critical to children's school readiness. It will also improve teacher quality by ensuring a greater number of Head Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early childhood development, particularly in teaching the fundamentals.

I am particularly pleased about how the bill will improve coordination between Head Start and State and local early childhood education programs. We are going to improve program integration in all 50 States by encouraging cooperation and program coordination from the ground up.

The bill also addresses weaknesses in the Head Start financial oversight structure that have allowed the mismanagement and outright abuse of Federal funds meant for disadvantaged children. Local media outlets across the Nation have documented more than a dozen instances of financial mismanagement involving millions of dollars and thousands of children. This lack of program integrity and financial accountability is unacceptable. The Federal Government is investing nearly $7 billion per year in Head Start, and every dime should be going to support disadvantaged children.

The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, in a report that we requested, found that the financial management weaknesses in Head Start are resulting in diminished services for children. Unfortunately, there is currently no system in place to assure parents and taxpayers that these types of abuses will be prevented. This is unfair to parents and children. It is unfair to taxpayers. And it is unfair to the many high- quality, hard-working, law abiding people who operate Head Start centers across the country who should not be associated with the deeds of these bad actors.

Head Start is an important program entrusted with a vitally important mission. The vast majority of those in Head Start are honest individuals dedicated to making sure the poorest of our Nation's children have a chance to succeed.

The School Readiness Act takes critical steps to support quality Head Start programs and the children they serve by encouraging quality through competition, strengthening transparency and disclosure, and improving the financial oversight structure to protect children and taxpayers.

I would like to address one more issue that is the subject of great debate today. In numerous Federal programs across the country, faith- based institutions that want to lend a helping hand and providing critical social services are allowed to do so without changing the fundamental character of their organization. Former President Bill Clinton, for example, signed four bills into law that explicitly protected the hiring rights for faith-based organizations when participating in Federal programs.

The Head Start program unfortunately provides no such protections to these organizations. To the contrary, faith-based organizations are forced to relinquish their protected right to hire individuals who share their beliefs or they are not allowed to participate in the program at all. For many faith-based organizations, it is their very nature to offer help and support the neediest among us. Their efforts in response to Hurricane Katrina serve as just one more example.

Their mission defined by their faith is to serve their community. Yet, when they seek to participate in federally funded programs for this purpose, they must forfeit the identity that drives them to serve.

Today I urge Members to support an amendment that I will be offering on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) to restore the hiring protections in the Head Start program so that faith-based institutions can participate fully without giving up their mission and character that make them such an effective partner for programs like Head Start that serve those in need.

Once again, I would like to thank the author of the bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for his hard work on behalf of the nearly one million children served each year by the Head Start program. We have got a strong bill that will help give disadvantaged children the head start they need

to succeed in school and in life. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my friend and colleague, for his efforts. His contributions and commitment to Head Start and the financial accountability that needs to exist within the program are so important.

Many of the accountability principles that were outlined in the gentleman's bill, H.R. 778, have been included in the School Readiness Act, and these reforms I think are critical if we are going to ensure grantees are effectively managing taxpayer dollars and also to ensure that funding is targeted most effectively for purposes that support the program's goal of preparing kids for school.

So, with that, I want to thank the gentleman for his contributions.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

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

There has been a great deal of effort been put into this bill on a bipartisan basis, and it has been pointed out it came out of committee 48-0.

One of the reasons that there is some concern is that Members on both sides of a question over the role of faith-based organizations, there are meaningful differences on both sides, but we have nothing to fear in allowing the House to work its will.

I respect those views of others who do not believe that if a faith- based organization takes a dollar of Federal money, they should give up their rights protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but there is no reason to fear allowing the House to make that decision.

So, later today, we will have an amendment that I will offer on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) to allow those organizations to have their rights protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and still provide these necessary services.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

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

Mr. Chairman, when our forefathers in the 1960s wrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act landmark legislation, they provided a specific exemption in hiring for religious organizations, understanding that religious organizations would probably want to hire someone of their own faith. Now, if you disagree with that, go to the Committee on the Judiciary and rewrite the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Nowhere in this exemption does it say that, well, you have the exemption if you use your own money, but if you participate in Federal programs, you lose the exemption. It does not say that anywhere in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The fact is, that I understand there are deeply held beliefs here, but I do not think a religious organization should have to give up their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just to participate in providing services to poor children who desperately need them.

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

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

If what is being proposed under the Boustany amendment is so awful, why would President Bill Clinton, during his 8 years in office, have signed the following bills into law: the 1996 welfare reform law; the 1998 Community Services Block Grant reauthorization, the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act; the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act.

Why would President Bill Clinton have signed all of these bills into law if, in fact, this was such a bad idea? Because all of these acts, signed into law by President Clinton, have the same identical language that is going to be offered later today.

The second point I would make is that what do we have to fear from allowing the House to work its will and letting the majority rule? Let us have the debate. Let us have the vote. Unfortunately, my colleagues know that we are likely to win, because we have won on this case time and time again as this debate has occurred in this House.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

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

The underlying reauthorization bill here is a good one, to help Head Start children to get the head start they need if they are going to have a chance to succeed in school. And we know from all of the studies for low-income children to have a chance in school, going through an early childhood development program like Head Start is

absolutely essential and that those children that are involved in Head Start and other like programs have a much better opportunity and a much better chance to succeed while they are in school.

We are about to get into the amendment process where we will consider a number of amendments to perfect this bill, and I would ask my colleagues to pay attention to these amendments. I think for most of them there is quite a bit of agreement. But, clearly, the one amendment dealing with the rights of faith-based organizations will draw an awful lot of attention.

But I would ask my colleagues, why should we not let the House work its will? If Members agree or disagree, we ought to have that right and we ought to respect the outcome of that vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, a member of our committee. It is over a very sensitive issue of how to deal with the parent councils. Under the current law, the current practice, these parent advisory councils have actually had veto authority over the decisions of the Head Start grantee.

Now, there is no one in this House who believes more in empowering parents to be active participants with their children, active and empowered parents with Head Start programs. But we have seen a number of problems in Head Start programs, from financial abuses to very poor results for children; and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I have worked closely to develop this bill and to develop this proposal that continues to allow parents to be actively involved.

It still requires the grantees to urge parents to be involved; but we do it, though, in a strictly advisory capacity. They are still going to play a big role. The only difference here is the veto power: whether, in fact, the parent councils can veto the decisions of the board or the management.

Now, this bill came out of committee 48 to nothing with the language that we are trying to preserve. I appreciate my colleague from Indiana coming along at the eleventh hour, wanting to change it, but the fact is that the committee endorsed the underlying language, and I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the subcommittee and the author of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) brings a very good amendment to this debate. And I certainly support the good work of Jump Start and think that the amendment that she offers makes a valuable contribution to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, and the Dean of the Ohio Delegation, for general remarks on the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

The amendment would temporarily suspend a large-scale assessment of Head Start children while needed work is done to ensure that the test is suitable for Head Start children and until we have greater assurances that the results are accurate and used for appropriate purposes.

The Head Start National Reporting System developed by the Department of Health and Human Services is a standardized assessment administered at the beginning to all 4- and 5-year-olds enrolled in Head Start.

During the first year's administration, the National Reporting System was completed by nearly 437,000 preschool children participating in Head Start, including 35,000 children with disabilities and 125,000 children with limited English proficiency.

The NRS was developed with limited congressional authority and input and has been the subject of great concern by many child development and early childhood advocates. There was general agreement by early childhood experts on the value of the assessment, and I tend to agree with that; and children are assessed regularly in nearly every preschool program across the country, including all Head Start classrooms.

I, too, recognize that early childhood assessments play an important role in measuring children's progress in key areas such as vocabulary, letter recognition, and early math, as well as other aspects of early childhood development.

I also agree with this administration that better data is needed on how well individual Head Start programs are doing in preparing children for kindergarten. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that assessments are conducted appropriately and effectively. And if we are going to do this, we need to make sure we get it right.

I want to commend the Secretary for convening panels to review and take steps to improve the National Reporting System, but I also believe that more time should be taken to make sure we get it right before its data are used to evaluate the progress of children participating in individual Head Start programs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that the amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin offers, he and I have worked together on this closely over the course of this year. I think it is a good amendment and would urge my colleagues to adopt it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) which makes further improvements to the management of the Head Start program. This has been a particular concern of mine as we have held hearings and taken a comprehensive look at how we can improve the effectiveness of the program on behalf of children and families. As we have heard here today, there are many great things happening in Head Start, but many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my view that not everything is working as well as it should.

When approaching this reauthorization, I took my job seriously to take a hard look at every aspect of the Head Start program and work toward the reforms that were necessary to make this program the very best that it can be. And to be perfectly frank, I did not like everything that I saw.

Over the course of the last several years, incidents of waste, fraud, program mismanagement, and even financial abuse of taxpayer dollars have been reported in at least two dozen Head Start programs across the country. While a large majority of the Head Start programs have responsible management organizations in place, I think this Congress has an obligation to improve known problems before they get worse. I think it is unfair to taxpayers, but most importantly, it is unfair to children and their parents who count on the Head Start program.

The underlying bill contains meaningful program reforms, focused primarily on improving program oversight and accountability at the local level, but in my assessment, additional reforms are needed to ensure effective program management at the top. In fact, as a recent General Accountability Office report reveals, there are systemic flaws in the program's Federal management, and these systemic flaws have been there for many, many years.

There is no need no question that we need to fix the problems at the local level. However, addressing issues locally is not enough, and I believe weaknesses in the Federal oversight mechanisms have contributed to the rash of financial mismanagement that we have seen in recent years because Head Start lacks the fundamental management standards and risk-based assessment tools necessary to prevent these types of abuses.

This amendment offers reforms that will lead to more efficient and effective Federal management of the Head Start program. In my view, the best way to accomplish this goal is for the department to contract with an experienced, independent organization to conduct a wholesale review, and support the implementation of reforms to the system of Federal management of Head Start grants. The amendment would task the intermediary organization to evaluate all systems affecting program quality, including grant selection, resource allocation, and processes to ensure the early identification of programs in need of intervention.

This amendment I think is a commonsense opportunity to inject accountability and sound management principles into the upper levels of the Head Start program. This bill seeks excellence from local Head Start programs, and I believe the same standard should be applied to the Federal Head Start structure as well.

Mr. Chairman, passage of the underlying bill will mark an important step toward enactment of the most far-reaching reforms to Head Start since the program first began 40 years ago, and this amendment could greatly improve the national program quality and maximize the use of taxpayer dollars. I want to thank my colleague from Florida, once again, for offering this amendment and ask my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment. I think it is a very good amendment.

Under current law, a for-profit entity can apply to be a local grantee to a Head Start program, but you are not allowed to make a profit. This has been in the law for some time. Given what we are trying to accomplish in terms of helping children be ready for school, we ought to have all of the providers possible. If there is an entity out there who thinks they can provide Head Start with a very high- quality program and make a profit, we ought to allow them the opportunity to apply and be in the program. That is all this amendment does. It does not guarantee that they are ever going to get a grant.

I am a big believer in competition, a big believer in the private sector and innovative solutions. Given the challenge we have with low- income children in very low-income neighborhoods, anything we can do to bring more high-quality innovative services to those children, we ought to take that chance, and so I support the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the point we are trying to make here is there is a lot of innovation that is underway in terms of bringing technology and other innovation to the whole idea of learning. When it comes to early childhood programs, the chance at a profit, I believe, could bring innovation technology to this entire sector. Nobody has asked me for it, I am not suggesting there is going to be a rush to come in with innovation, but without some opportunity at getting a return on your investment, will the innovation ever come?

That is where I am willing to take the chance that new ideas, new innovations in terms of developing these children, could be very beneficial to the program.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and I have worked together and have known each other since the gentleman's arrival here in Congress. This amendment will direct the Department of Health and Human Services to assist those displaced children, to try to get them into Head Start locations around the country. We have already allocated some $15 million to help enroll children in those places where they have moved to temporarily.

We believe that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) would help on a longer-term basis. Given the fact we have another hurricane going to hit somewhere in the gulf in the next couple of days, unfortunately, there could be more children displaced, and helping them stay in a Head Start program, regardless of where they go, is something for their good and their family's good and our country's good, and is something we should do. I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for offering this important amendment. Unfortunately, with the hurricane moving now somewhat east of where it was, he decided to return to his district in central and southwestern Louisiana. So he is not here today, and I offer the amendment in his place.

Faith-based organizations such as churches, synagogues, and charities are an essential fabric of local communities across America. This amendment will correct a flaw in the Federal Head Start law that has stripped these organizations of their hiring rights, forcing them to relinquish their civil liberties if they choose to participate in Federal early childhood programs that are poised to be reauthorized today.

We have had this debate many times before here on the House floor. In fact, earlier this year we rejected, in a bipartisan fashion, an amendment that would have barred faith-based organizations from providing job training services in their own communities. Unfortunately, each time we have had this debate, opponents of faith- based groups' federally protected right to maintain their religious nature and character through those they hire have equated these civil liberties with discrimination.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act makes clear that faith-based groups may serve their communities without being forced to give up their right to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith. Were the authors of the Civil Rights Act pro-discrimination? No.

The United States Supreme Court in 1987 unanimously reaffirmed the hiring rights for faith-based organizations. Was the Supreme Court pro- discrimination? No.

Former President Bill Clinton signed four laws explicitly allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal funds: the 1996 Welfare Reform law, the 1998 Community Services Block Grant Act, the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act, and the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act. Was President Clinton pro-discrimination? No.

The amendment we are considering today is offered in the same spirit as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1987 Supreme Court decision, and each of the

four laws signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Our Nation's Head Start students deserve to be served by the very best organizations willing to lend a helping hand, and if those organizations are not faith based, so be it. But if they are, the faith and values that motivate them to serve their neighbors should not be held against them.

Considering the proven track record of faith-based providers in meeting the needs of our Nation, efforts we are seeing in action right now in the gulf coast region, why would we want to deny them the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of Head Start students?

President Bush has worked tirelessly to remove barriers that needlessly discourage faith-based groups from bringing their talents and compassion to Federal initiatives that help Americans in need. Countless times he has called on Congress to send him ``the same language protecting religious hiring that President Clinton signed on four other occasions.'' This amendment answers the President's call once again.

We should not be denying compassionate, professional faith-based providers the opportunity to serve our children, and I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about how we brought this bill out of our committee and brought it to the House, with a unanimous vote out of the committee, 48 to nothing. One of the reasons that this language was not included in the original bill was to try to create a spirit of bipartisanship in moving the process along.

But the American people elected us to come here and make decisions on their behalf. We are having a free and open debate about this issue. No one should denigrate the majority because we want to have a debate and want to have a vote. We have had this debate many times in this House. It has passed every time on a bipartisan basis, and I expect it will pass on a bipartisan basis again today.

The issue here is a simple one. In the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and amendments to it in 1974, religious organizations were granted an exception in their hiring practices so they could hire people

of their own faith. I think most people would understand that. Over the years, religious organizations have been involved in doing all types of good works, including providing programs in their communities. But, for far too long, these organizations have been denied the use of Federal dollars in order to preserve their religious heritage.

Over the years, a number of programs passed by this Congress have been signed into law that have allowed religious organizations to maintain the rights given to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and provide services with Federal funds. As a matter of fact, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, during 8 years in office, signed 4 laws into law that had the same identical language as being offered to this bill today.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is, President Bill Clinton signed these laws into law, knowing that the language that we are offering today was included.

What we have been trying to do in the Work Force Investment Act, the Community Services Block Grant Act, today in the Head Start Act, is bring some consistency to the Federal rules and regulations in terms of allowing faith-based providers to offer services without having to give up their protections under the Civil Rights Act.

Now, if you want to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act and say to religious organizations, you can have your exemption on hiring, unless you take a Federal dollar, fine. Go have that debate in the Judiciary Committee, bring it out here, and we will vote on it. But this is not the forum to deny those organizations their own rights.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

What we are trying to do here is preserve the rights given to religious organizations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And for the Members who have been paying some attention to this, we know that Members on different sides of the aisle, and frankly it is on a bipartisan basis, have deeply held convictions about this. Clearly, we are not in real agreement.

But this is an issue that the House really should decide and the House should vote on. I am glad that we are having this debate once again, because the longer we have the debate, clearly, the evidence is coming down that the winning side continues to prevail.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill which would provide significant flexibility for workers displaced by Hurricane Katrina as they seek temporary employment and training.

Our prayers are with the residents of the gulf coast region, as well as all those working on the relief and recovery effort. All of our colleagues from the region, including two of my own on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), should know that our thoughts are with them and their communities as well.

I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for drafting this important piece of legislation in short order. It will make a world of difference for thousands of workers in his region of the country.

Hurricane Katrina has disrupted the lives of an unprecedented number of gulf coast residents. Among the harshest realities of the hurricane is that tens of thousands of workers have been displaced not just from their homes, but from their jobs as well. Through both legislative initiatives here in Congress and administrative actions by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Government is working to eliminate bureaucratic red tape so that workers and their families in the impacted areas may access immediate assistance, including temporary job placement and training.

One way we are doing this is through the national emergency grants which provide temporary disaster relief employment of up to 6 months for individuals who participate in projects that provide assistance for victims of that particular disaster.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Labor Department has awarded more than $191 million in national emergency grants thus far to help provide more than 40,000 temporary jobs in the gulf coast region. The legislation before us today takes another important step. It adds even more flexibility to these grants. In short, it makes more jobs and training available to more displaced workers more quickly.

For example, for the countless displaced workers who have left the gulf coast region, this measure makes national emergency grant funds available for employment projects located outside the designated Hurricane Katrina disaster area. It also expands the national emergency grant eligibility to displaced individuals who currently are unemployed, as well as those with no prior work history, and finally, to provide workers with the peace of mind that this assistance will not disappear too soon, this legislation will empower the Secretary of Labor to extend the duration of the national emergency grant projects from 6 months to 12 months.

Madam Speaker, we have made substantial progress over the past 2 weeks, both in the recovery efforts in the gulf coast area and in our own legislative efforts here in Washington. This bill marks another step in the long process that this Congress will undertake over the coming weeks and months to address the needs of all of those impacted by this tragedy.

Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for his work and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to extend assistance for the men and women serving in the military by continuing to provide student aid flexibility; and I want to applaud the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for his leadership in providing flexibility and support for military personnel.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his continued support for higher education and his leadership along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) to protect the interests of members of the armed services.

The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), on the other side of the aisle, have worked closely with us on this bill. And because it does expire at the end of this month, we do, in fact, need to extend it.

The Higher Education Act, which we will extend after we deal with this bill, deals with the issue of deferring the interest payments on those loans for active duty people, our servicemembers, who have been called up. That higher education bill we will talk about when we deal with the extension of the current Higher Education Act, but we are hopeful that in the coming month or so we will be able to bring the higher education reauthorization bill to the floor which will deal with the issue our friend from Maryland has referred to.

I do want to say that this is an important bill. We need to get it passed and get it to the other body to pass it so that our men and women in uniform will not be penalized because in fact they were called up, those who were in an institution of higher education. So I congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3784) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam 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. 3784, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, each year millions of Americans, young and old, participate in higher education programs at this Nation's colleges and universities. Higher education has become more important than ever with a changing marketplace and increasing international competition; and that is why the Federal investment in higher education is so important.

For more than 2 years, my colleagues and I have been working to strengthen and renew the Higher Education Act so that we can better serve the millions of low- and middle-income students aspiring for a college education. And while we have made great progress this year, the reauthorization process is still not complete.

Today, I stand in support of the Higher Education Extension Act so that we ensure these vital programs continue to serve American students. The measure extends critical programs for a brief time frame, 3 months, to give Congress the additional time it needs to complete this process in the best interests of students and taxpayers.

In February, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I introduced the College Access and Opportunity Act to complete the Higher Education Act reauthorization. That bill, similar to legislation of the same name we offered last year, was the culmination of a comprehensive effort to expand college access by focusing on fairness, accountability, affordability, and quality.

That bill contained a number of reforms that I had hoped would be enacted by today. The College Access and Opportunity Act would have realigned our student aid programs to place first priority back where it belongs, on the millions of low- and middle-income students who have not yet received a higher education.

The bill would have strengthened Pell grants, college access programs, and campus-based student aid. It would have broken down barriers and eliminated outdated regulations that are preventing nontraditional students from achieving their higher education goals.

It would have significantly realigned the multibillion-dollar student loan programs to expand access for current and future students and restore fairness so that all student borrowers would be treated equally. Consumer protection for borrowers would have been strengthened, red tape would have been reduced, and because accountability is the cornerstone of American education reform, colleges and universities would have been held more accountable to students, parents, and taxpayers, the people they serve, through increased sunshine and transparency.

Now I remain committed to a comprehensive reauthorization and hope to complete that process this year. In the meantime, the bill before us is critically important. We cannot allow programs under the Higher Education Act to expire. Too many students depend on this assistance as they strive for a higher education. Yet it is equally important that we remain committed to comprehensive reforms that will build upon these programs in strengthening them in order to expand college access.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the extension of the Higher Education Act. Millions of American students depend on these programs, and we must not let our commitment to higher education lapse. But it is equally important that we remain focused on the ultimate goal of enacting comprehensive reforms that will strengthen and renew the Higher Education Act so it can meet the needs of current and future students.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and work with us in the coming weeks and months to complete this comprehensive reform package so we can better serve American students who are pursuing a college education.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's support of the bill today to extend the Higher Education Act; but I find myself in a position of having to rise and respond to some of the criticisms of H.R. 609, the reauthorization bill for the Higher Education Act that is in process.

The gentleman is right, we do over the next 5 years save $9 billion in taxpayer funds while at the same time we reduce origination fees for students, we expand loan limits for students, and better equalize the campus-based aid programs around the country.

Now, my colleague and his friends on the other side of the aisle came up with proposals to save money as well. The only difference here is that we decided that net of $9 billion ought to be saved for the taxpayers because, after all, it is their money. My friends on the other side of the aisle decided to spend it. Well meaning, well intentioned, but at some point we in Congress have a responsibility to enact public policy that is fair for all.

Some people do not go to college. As my friend knows, I am the only one of my 11 brothers and sisters to go to college. To the extent we are providing loans, they are being paid for by taxpayers, some of whom do not get a higher education. So what is fair?

I think the underlying bill, providing college loans, providing Pell grants for underserved students, is a very good thing for our country. But how much is enough?

We are going to spend about $75 billion this year in Pell grants and student loans to help low- to middle-income students achieve the dream of a higher education. I think that it is an important part of our responsibility to help improve our society. But at the same time, we also have a responsibility to people who pay taxes, and people who pay taxes watching money flowing out of this institution like water over a dam.

At some point I am not going to stand here and be embarrassed because we help improve access to higher education, we help improve the ability of students to pay for their loan programs, and at the same time save $9 billion over 5 years for the taxpayers. I think it is a pretty good deal for all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend from Michigan, and we are friends, I proudly voted for the tax cuts and thank goodness that we passed them. Let us recount what has happened over the past 4\1/2\ years: a weak economy in 2001; followed by the devastating effects of 9/11; a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq; and now Hurricane Katrina.

If we had not enacted those tax cuts in early 2001, what shape would our economy be in today? I want to correct my friend that voting for reductions in marginal tax rates does not mean reductions in revenue to the Federal Government. We have had this debate here in Congress now for 25 years, but reducing marginal tax rates has in fact increased revenues to the Federal Government. And look at the strength of our economy today that would not have been there had we not had those reductions in taxes.

We can, in fact, reduce taxes, grow our economy, and hold the lid on spending and give the American people the best deal in the world: good government, reasonable level of services, and more money in their pocket, that they can decide how to spend in the best interest of themselves and their families and their communities.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). As I said before, we are friends and I appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks. I believe our committee process here in Congress ought to be an open forum and that Members clearly can agree, but in our committee we do not really

allow members to be disagreeable. I think what it does is foster a committee where members cooperate and get to know each other and work together, and even though we may not agree on everything, every member should have a right to offer his or her ideas about the pending legislation.

Now back to the bill at hand, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for supporting the extension of the Higher Education Act for 3 months, and it is my fervent desire in the next 3 months Congress will reenact this authorization to the benefit of millions of American students.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the United States Constitution's 218th anniversary.

On September 17, 1787, 39 delegates from 12 states convened in Philadelphia to outline the powers of a new government--a government that for the first time in world history would exercise its authority from powers loaned to it by its citizens, not the other way around. It represented a sea change from centuries of belief that every person's right to his property was somehow the state's to grant or to confiscate.

John Adams once said, ``The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.'' I believe that every American that swears to defend the Constitution is obliged to defend that sacred right. Unfortunately, there exists a depressing trend, highlighted by the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London, where those who think ``government knows best'' gain and property rights yield.

With the death of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, America is once again presented with a test of her character. A new Chief Justice must be appointed. He or she will bear the responsibility for defending a document that has generally succeeded in securing individual liberty for 218 years. From what I have learned about Judge Roberts, I am optimistic that he will rise to the occasion. I can only hope that the Senate will too. The Constitution is far too valuable for politics.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for yielding me time.

I rise in strong support of this bill to provide additional relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina who have been forced to withdraw from institutions of higher education as they work to rebuild their homes and their community.

The tragedy that has befallen the Gulf Coast region in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the level of devastation and its impact on American families is truly staggering; and our prayers remain with the residents of that region as well as those who are working on relief and this recovery effort.

We are working closely with the Department of Education to determine how we can best meet the needs of the children, families, teachers, and schools that have been impacted by this tragedy. We have identified an immediate need for action to assist students pursuing higher education who are forced to withdraw because of the devastation caused by the hurricane, and that is why we are taking action today.

I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) for introducing this bill to provide additional flexibility for students struggling to cope with this unprecedented natural disaster. The bill complements the measure offered yesterday by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) to protect students forced to withdraw from higher education as a result of a natural disaster.

This bill will give the Secretary of Education a new flexibility to waive burdensome requirements on students impacted by this or other natural disasters. The bill would ensure students forced to withdraw from higher education because of natural disaster would not be forced to repay their Federal student grant aid, alleviating what could be a major burden for students already coping with this disaster.

This type of waiver authority that we granted yesterday and then again today already exists for the student loan programs and is being provided yesterday by the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Keller) bill for Pell grants and then today by the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Jindal) bill that would allow the Secretary waiver authority for those who may receive grant programs and scholarship programs such as GEAR UP, TRIO, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants.

As we assess the damage in the weeks and months ahead, we will be working with our leadership and our colleagues across the aisle to provide additional resources and additional flexibility to the communities impacted by this tragedy to make sure that all the resources of the Federal Government are available to help each and every American that has been affected.

So, once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal), the bill's sponsor, for his work and urge my colleagues to support the bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which would provide assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina whose employment and training have been disrupted as a result of this tragedy.

The level of devastation we are witnessing in the Gulf Coast region is truly staggering. Our prayers are with the residents of the region, as well as all those working on the relief and recovery effort. All of our colleagues from the region--including two of my own on the Education & the Workforce Committee, Mr. Jindal and Mr. Boustany, as well as Mr. McCrery, the author of the legislation we are considering today--should know our thoughts are with them and their communities as well.

I commend the gentleman from Louisiana, Representative McCrery, for crafting this important legislation in short order. It will make a world of difference for many families in the region as they struggle to retain some sense of financial stability.

In order to deliver the quickest possible economic assistance to families in need across the country, the measure before us provides all States immediate access to their next quarter's Temporary Aid to Needy Families (or TANF) funds. That means $4.2 billion in flexible funds would be distributed to all States right away, rather than waiting precious weeks until the start of the next quarter. This legislation also would provide welcome relief for affected states in the form of a 20 percent TANF increase for the coming fiscal year.

This bill also takes the prudent step of waiving work requirements and time limits for residents in need of short-term TANF benefits as a result of the hurricane. Or primary concern right now is ensuring that families in that region can focus on putting their lives back together, as well as allowing States to focus on providing immediate assistance to those in need. Scores of families in the Gulf Coast region have endured enough pain and worry already, and this measure will provide them the peace of mind that these important benefits will be available when they need it most--and without added burdens when they need them least.

Mr. Speaker, we have made substantial progress over the past week, both in the recovery efforts in the South and in our own legislative efforts here in Washington. This bill marks another step in the long process that this Congress will undertake over the coming weeks and months to address the needs of all those impacted by the tragedy.

Once again, I thank Mr. McCrery for his work and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill to provide assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina whose higher education aspirations have been disrupted as a result of the tragic events of the last 10 days. This bill represents a first small step in our efforts in the weeks and months to come that we hope will make a critical difference for students and families as they work to rebuild their homes and their lives, and hopefully are able to return to higher education.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for developing this bill and for recognizing the forgotten struggles of students forced to withdraw from college as a result of a natural disaster.

The premise behind this bill is very simple. It says that if a student is forced to withdraw from higher education because of a natural disaster, that student will not have to repay their Pell grant that has already been awarded and perhaps already spent. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) has been developing this legislation for months, in large part because of what he saw in last year's hurricane in Florida and how it impacted his constituents enrolled in higher education and those that had Pell grants.

The Higher Education Act already allows waiver authority for the Secretary of Education to exercise in case of a natural disaster declared by the President. However, that authority exists for student loans and not for Pell grants, a discrepancy that can have a significant impact on disadvantaged college students.

Pell grants serve some of the most disadvantaged students enrolled in higher education. In fiscal year 1999, an estimated nearly 45 percent of dependent Pell grant recipients had total parental income of below $20,000, and more than 90 percent had total income of less than $40,000.

Pell grants are a need-based aid that students do not have to pay back. However, when students withdraw from higher education, they may have to return a portion of their Pell grant aid.

Unfortunately, in the case of a natural disaster, there is no mechanism for the Secretary to waive that requirement, which may force students who have already lost their homes and communities to actually pay back the Pell grant funds that they had been awarded.

I am pleased that my committee included this provision in a comprehensive Higher Education Act reform package approved in July. Today, however, we have an opportunity to act quickly to ensure that students in the gulf coast region get the relief they need and they get it soon. This proposal was adopted with bipartisan support in the committee, by a voice vote, during subcommittee markup of our higher education reform package; and I expect similar support today as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join together to provide relief to college students impacted by this unprecedented natural disaster.

Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the bill's sponsor, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.