Floor Statements

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. 27.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we stand here today we continue to see significant progress toward greater economic opportunity and prosperity across the country. More than 2.7 million new jobs have been created over the last 17 months, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.2 percent, the lowest level since September 2001. Our economy is strong and it is getting stronger.

The backbone of a strong economy is a well-trained and highly skilled workforce, and it is absolutely critical for workers to have the education and skills necessary to adapt to new opportunities and to move into higher wages.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed with this view when he testified before the Committee on Education and the Workforce last year. The chairman said, ``We need to increase our efforts to ensure that as many of our citizens as possible have the opportunity to capture the benefits of the changing economy. One critical element in creating that opportunity is the provision of rigorous education and ongoing training to all members of our society.''

Chairman Greenspan this morning testified before Congress and talked about the need to do a better job with our education system and better training and retraining of American workers.

The bill before us, the Job Training Improvement Act, would achieve this objective by strengthening the Nation's job training system. In 1998, Congress established a system of one-stop career centers aimed at providing one convenient central location to offer job training and related employment services. While these reforms have been generally successful, the Workforce Investment Act system is still hampered by bureaucracy and duplication that prevents it from being as effective as it could be for workers and their families.

Our bill includes a number of reforms aimed at strengthening our job training system and better engaging the business community to improve job training services.

Our bill includes a number of reforms. First, requiring State and local workforce investment boards to ensure the job training programs reflect the employment needs in local areas. Secondly, allowing training for currently employed workers so employees can upgrade their skills and avoid layoffs. Third, encouraging the highest caliber providers, including community colleges, to offer training through the one-stop system, and leveraging other public and private resources to increase training and opportunities.

The bill also includes other important reforms. First, it consolidates the three adult WIA training programs, giving States and local communities greater flexibility and enabling more job seekers to be served with no reduction in services.

In addition, it targets 70 percent of the youth grant funds to out- of-school youth, an underserved population that faces significant challenges in finding meaningful employment.

The bill includes a proposal passed by the House last year introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) to create personal reemployment accounts of up to $3,000 to help unemployed Americans purchase job training and other employment-related services, such as child care, transportation services and housing assistance, giving them the flexibility they need in order to gain meaningful employment. In addition, it includes the President's community college proposal to strengthen the partnership between local businesses, community colleges, and the local one-stop delivery system.

Later today, we will consider an amendment from my colleague from Virginia to strip the faith-based provisions from this bill, an amendment that would deny faith-based providers their rights under the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act. When we considered this bill in committee, we twice rejected it on a bipartisan basis, and I urge all Members to vote against it today. The 1964 Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis, it can exercise the group's civil rights liberties and not discriminate under Federal law. In 1987, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld this right.

As my colleagues can see from the chart that I have next to me, former President Bill Clinton signed four laws allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive those Federal funds. Those four laws are 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, all allowing faith-based providers to preserve their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Our Nation's faith-based institutions have a proven track record in meeting the training and counseling needs of

our citizens. Why would we want to deny them the opportunity to help in Federal job training efforts? President Bush repeated this call to empower faith-based providers both during his State of the Union address and again yesterday. I can think of no better place to start than to protect the rights of faith-based groups who are willing to lend a helping hand in providing job training and other critical social services to the most needy of our citizens.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his work in putting this bill together, a bill that is supported by a broad and diverse coalition of groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Workforce Boards, the National Workforce Association, the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom and the Salvation Army, amongst others.

We are part of a dynamic economy that is constantly creating new and different types of jobs, so the knowledge and skills of each job seeker is absolutely critical in determining their success or failure. If we are going to help them succeed, then strengthening our job training programs is essential. The bill, I believe, accomplishes that goal.

Unfortunately, the only plan that my colleagues on the other side have put forward to address the needs of American workers is the status quo. Their plan fails to reduce duplication and inefficiency, it fails to give States and local communities more flexibility, and it fails to take advantage of the positive role that faith-based institutions play in our communities and the success they have in providing critical social services to those most in need.

Mr. Chairman, the status quo is no plan at all. I ask my colleagues to support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the author of the bill, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for raising this issue. Data on young adults participating in adult education programs is important information for our committee as well as for the adult education programs and for school districts to keep in mind as we work to raise our high school completion rates. And it is my understanding that this is information that the Department already collects but has not been a focus in program reporting.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman for his work on this issue. I will continue to work with him and the Department to ensure that we have the necessary information to carefully monitor the participation of high school-aged students in adult education programs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I pledge to work with her and other interested members of the New York delegation during conference on this legislation to identify and remedy any governance problems which New York may have under this bill. However, it is not clear that the language that the gentlewoman offered in committee that is included in S. 9 fixes the problem in New York and could have other unintended consequences in New York and other States.

So my goal is to ensure that the mandatory partners contribute to the cost of the one-stop infrastructure without causing constitutional problems for States. And as I suggested, I will continue to work with the gentlewoman to achieve this.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is the Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. It was first passed in 1998. These one-stop centers that have been created all over the country to help the people gain skills and to increase their skills are a critical part of what we need to do if we are going to have a successful economy over the next 10, 20 and even 50 years.

What we have done in this reauthorization is tried to make these one- stop centers work even better. We believe that by consolidating the three separate funding streams, three different sets of employees, three different sets of books, we can gain more flexibility for the local workforce boards and thereby freeing up more dollars to be used to actually train workers.

We believe strongly that the youth services money here ought to be directed for the most part to out of school youth, a population that is vastly underserved and we do that in this bill. We also believe that faith-based providers, especially in large urban centers, can provide a very necessary outreach to help those who are really needy have an opportunity to get the kind of training and retraining they need to become productive members of our society.

I think what we have here is a very good bill. And while my friends on the other side of the aisle have some disagreement, I think all of us understand that by and large, this is a good program, that the bill before us is worth the support of my colleagues and I would ask them to do that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is being offered by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), would strike all of the positive reforms for youth that are included in H.R. 27. Under current law, funds for the WIA youth program are spread too thinly, as they fund programs that both serve in-school and out-of-school youth.

In the White House, the Disadvantaged Youth Task Force has proposed targeted Federal youth training funds to serve the most in need and to reduce the duplication of services amongst Federal programs. There are a large number of programs today designed to deal with in-school, at- risk children, and there is really only one program in WIA that is targeted at out-of-school youth.

What we tried to do in this bill was to strike a balance by requiring that 70 percent of the youth program funds go to out-of-school youth, a population that is by and large ignored and that I think these funds ought to be targeted to. We do allow the local workforce boards to use up to 30 percent of their programs for in-school youth; but there are other programs, a half a dozen other programs, targeted at these at- risk children who are in school.

So as a way of trying to bring more synergy to an effort to help out- of-school youth, I think the language we have in the bill strikes the right balance.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to correct the record.

The gentlewoman who just spoke says that we eliminated a preference for veterans in this bill. The fact is that there is a preference for veterans written into the law. That has not changed at all.

Secondly, the gentlewoman said there are block grants in the underlying bill. There are no block grants. As a matter of fact, the targeting of funds to the local workforce boards in this bill is more structured than it is today under current law, so that at least 75 percent of the funds available back to the States must go to the local workforce investment boards.

Lastly, the gentlewoman said that we have discrimination in this bill. I would just remind the gentlewoman that when our predecessors wrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they recognized in title VII that religious organizations ought to be protected in their hiring so that they would not be required to hire anybody that shows up, but could, if they wanted to, only hire those people within their faith.

Now, if people want to disagree with title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they certainly have that right. They may go to the Committee on the Judiciary and change that law, but let us not try to do it in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds, the balance of my time, to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who I know has been pressed for time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment by my friend from Virginia would actually work against the neediest citizens in our local communities. Faith-based organizations such as churches, synagogues and other

faith-based charities are a central part of the fabric of local communities across America. Many of these faith-based institutions provide assistance to the hardest-to-serve individuals because they often go where others will not and serve those others prefer not to serve, and go out of the way to meet people where they are rather than where we would want them to be.

President Bush noted yesterday at a speech that one of the key reasons why many faith-based groups are so effective is the commitment to serve that is grounded in the shared values and religious identity of their volunteers and their employees. In other words, effectiveness happens because people who share faith show up to help a particular organization based on that faith to succeed.

I agree with President Bush that many faith-based organizations can make a vital contribution to Federal assistance programs. Yet this amendment would deny faith-based institutions their rights, under the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act. Considering the proven track record of faith-based providers in meeting the needs of our citizens, why would we want to deny them the opportunity to help in Federal job training efforts?

Unfortunately, in some Federal laws, these faith-based organizations have been stripped of their hiring rights and must relinquish their civil liberties if they choose to participate in Federal service initiatives.

The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of religious organizations to take religion into account into their hiring practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith- based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the organization's civil liberties and not discrimination under Federal law.

Those organizations willing to serve their communities by participating in Federal programs should not be forced to compromise their religious liberties in order to serve those in need. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 upheld the rights of faith-based institutions and held that it was constitutional for these groups to take religion into account when making hiring decisions.

Former Democrat President Bill Clinton himself signed four laws explicitly allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal funds. Those laws are 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.

President Bush has worked tirelessly to remove the barriers that needlessly discourage faith-based groups from bringing their talents and compassion to Federal initiatives that help Americans in need. And just yesterday, again, he called on Congress to send him the same language protecting religious hiring that President Clinton signed on four other occasions.

The underlying bill answers the President's call and takes advantage of the positive role that faith-based institutions play in our communities in serving those who are most in need. We should not be denying faith-based providers the opportunity to serve the neediest of our citizens. And I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Scott amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly says that religious organizations in their hiring can hire people of their own faith. Period. That is what it says. It does not say whether you take Federal money or you do not take Federal money. It says that a religious organization can take religion into account in terms of their hiring. Period.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we keep our eye on the target here. The bill before us seeks to help Americans who need job training services or retraining services to help them have an opportunity to participate and succeed in the economy of the 21st century. The question is how best do we deliver those services.

Under the Workforce Investment Act, we set up these one-stop centers all over the country. They have in fact been wildly successful. But we also know that there are pockets of poverty, pockets of people in very dire straits, that are not going to come walking into a one-stop shop. We also know that there are organizations out there that as part of their faith, part of the mission of their faith, go out and help those in need.

Now, what we are trying to do is to make sure that these services get to the people that they need. So in this bill we include protections for those faith-based organizations who may want to participate in this program, give them the opportunity to do that without, without giving up their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It is a very simple question that we are down to here. My friends on the other side of the aisle, by and large, want to say if you take one Federal dollar in the pursuit of helping others under this program, you have to give up your rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is the whole point here.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, so the debate here boils down to one of two issues, you believe that if these faith-based organizations want to participate in these programs that they have to give up their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

We believe and the majority of this House has believed on a number of occasions as we have had this vote, that faith-based organizations who want to help the neediest of the needy should in fact be able to have their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is just as simple as that.

So I would ask my colleagues as they look at this bill and look at this amendment to support the work that we have done, to allow these groups to participate. They do good work. There is no reason why that they cannot partner with the Federal Government to help us in our effort to help the neediest of the needy, and to help improve the prospects for job training and retraining to help all Americans participate in the 21st century economy and give them a chance to succeed at the American dream.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Scott amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let us tell the truth about what has happened in job creation in America. Over the last 17 months, 2.7 million new jobs have been created in America. Our economy is strong and our economy is getting stronger. If we look at the underlying bill that we have before us, veterans have a preference to services above all others.

What the gentleman from Michigan proposes here is a brand new program similar to a trade adjustment program that provides up to 2 years of unemployment-type benefits and provides unlimited access to training. But the fact is that unemployed workers have access today, people coming back from Iraq who are unemployed have access to services, and those who may have their jobs lost through outsourcing have, in fact, access to services.

But what also happens under the gentleman's amendment is that they get a preference in this bill. The gentleman creates a new preference here above other types of people who may have lost their jobs. The underlying bill, in fact, will provide more services to more unemployed workers and workers who want to increase their skills who may not be unemployed.

But when we look at this, this is a new program. This is an authorization. There is no appropriation. We all know it will probably take 2 to 5 years for this type of program to be implemented. The fact is I think it is a cruel hoax on those who may be unemployed, who may fall into one of these categories to think that they are going to be eligible for unemployment-type assistance or be eligible for unlimited

training when, in fact, there is no appropriation and the fact is the program will take years to implement.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Education and the Workforce may have until 5 p.m. on Friday, February 25, 2005, to file a report to accompany H.R. 27.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules for the 109th Congress for the Committee on Education and the Workforce for publication in the Congressional Record.

The Rules of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for the 109th

Congress

rule 1. regular, additional, & special meetings: vice-chairman

(a) Regular meetings of the committee shall be held on the

second Wednesday of each month at 9:30 a.m., while the House

is in session. When the Chairman believes that the committee

will not be considering any bill or resolution before the

committee and that there is no other business to be

transacted at a regular meeting, he will give each member of

the committee, as far in advance of the day of the regular

meeting as the circumstances make practicable, a written

notice to that effect; and no committee meeting shall be held

on that day.

(b) The Chairman may call and convene, as he considers

necessary, additional meetings of the committee for the

consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the

committee or for the conduct of other committee business. The

committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that call

of the Chairman.

(c) If at least three members of the committee desire that

a special meeting of the committee be called by the Chairman,

those members may file in the offices of the committee their

written request to the Chairman for that special meeting.

Immediately upon the filing of the request, the staff

director of the committee shall notify the Chairman of the

filing of the request. If, within three calendar days after

the filing of the request, the Chairman does not call the

requested special meeting to be held within seven calendar

days after the filing of the request, a majority of the

members of the committee may file in the offices of the

committee their written notice that a special meeting of the

committee will be held, specifying the date and hour thereof,

and the measure or matter to be considered at that special

meeting. The committee shall meet on that date and hour.

Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the staff director

of the committee shall notify all members of the committee

that such meeting will be held and inform them of its date

and hour and the measure or matter to be considered; and only

the measure or matter specified in that notice may be

considered at that special meeting.

(d) All legislative meetings of the committee and its

subcommittees shall be open to the public, including radio,

television and still photography coverage. No business

meeting of the committee, other than regularly scheduled

meetings, may be held without each member being given

reasonable notice. Such meeting shall be called to order and

presided over by the Chairman, or in the absence of the

Chairman, by the vice-chairman, or the Chairman's designee.

(e) The Chairman of the committee or of a subcommittee, as

appropriate, shall preside at meetings or hearings, or, in

the absence of the chairman, the vice-chairman, or the

Chairman's designee shall preside.

rule 2. questioning of witnesses

(a) Subject to clauses (b) and (c), Committee members may

question witnesses only when they have been recognized by the

Chairman for that purpose, and only for a 5-minute period

until all members present have had an opportunity to question

a witness. The questioning of witnesses in both committee and

subcommittee hearings shall be initiated by the Chairman,

followed by the ranking minority party member and all other

members alternating between the majority and minority party

in order of the member's appearance at the hearing. In

recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion,

the Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the

majority to minority party members present and shall

establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a

manner as not to place the members of the majority party in a

disadvantageous position.

(b) The Chairman may permit a specified number of members

to question a witness for longer than five minutes. The time

for extended questioning of a witness under this clause shall

be equal for the majority party and the minority party and

may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.

(c) The Chairman may permit committee staff for the

majority and the minority party members to question a witness

for equal specified periods. The time for extended

questioning of a witness under this clause shall be equal for

the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed

one hour in the aggregate.

rule 3. records & rollcalls

(a) Written records shall be kept of the proceedings of the

committee and of each subcommittee, including a record of the

votes on any question on which a rollcall is demanded. The

result of each such rollcall vote shall be made available by

the committee or subcommittee for inspection by the public at

reasonable times in the offices of the committee or

subcommittee. Information so available for public inspection

shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order,

or other proposition and the name of each member voting for

and each member voting against such amendment, motion, order,

or proposition, and the names of those members present but

not voting. A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of the

members present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by

any one member.

(b) In accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, any

official permanent record of the committee (including any

record of a legislative, oversight, or other activity of the

committee or any subcommittee) shall be made available for

public use if such record has been in existence for 30 years,

except that--

(1) any record that the committee (or a subcommittee) makes

available for public use before such record is delivered to

the Archivist under clause 2 of Rule VII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives shall be made available immediately,

including any record described in subsection (a) of this

Rule;

(2) any investigative record that contains personal data

relating to a specific living individual (the disclosure of

which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy),

any administrative record with respect to personnel, and any

record with respect to a hearing closed pursuant to clause

2(g)(2) of Rule Xl of the Rules of the House of

Representatives shall be available if such record has been in

existence for 50 years; or

(3) except as otherwise provided by order of the House, any

record of the committee for which a time, schedule, or

condition for availability is specified by order of the

committee (entered during the Congress in which the record is

made or acquired by the committee) shall be made available in

accordance with the order of the committee.

(c) The official permanent records of the committee include

noncurrent records of the committee (including subcommittees)

delivered by the Clerk of the House of Representatives to the

Archivist of the United States for preservation at the

National Archives and Records Administration, which are the

property of and remain subject to the rules and orders of the

House of Representatives.

(d)(1) Any order of the committee with respect to any

matter described in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be

adopted only if the notice requirements of committee Rule

18(c) have been met, a quorum consisting of a majority of the

members of the committee is present at the time of the vote,

and a majority of those present and voting approve the

adoption of the order, which shall be submitted to the Clerk

of the House of Representatives, together with any

accompanying report.

(2) This subsection applies to any order of the committee

which--

(A) provides for the non-availability of any record subject

to subsection (b) of this rule for a period longer than the

period otherwise applicable; or

(B) is subsequent to, and constitutes a later order under

clause 4(b) of Rule VII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, regarding a determination of the Clerk of

the House of Representatives with respect to authorizing the

Archivist of the United States to make available for public

use the records delivered to the Archivist under clause 2 of

Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives; or

(C) specifies a time, schedule, or condition for

availability pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of this Rule.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 46, which celebrates mentors who are positively impacting the lives of young people and highlights the need for additional mentors that we need around the country.

I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), who never lets a day go by without pushing this project of his to increase the number of mentors that we have around the country. He has clearly been the leader in the House on this issue, and without his efforts we would not have this resolution on the floor today, nor would the Federal Government be nearly as involved in mentoring as it is.

We all know that mentors give their time and energy to improve the lives of American young people, and they are doing it in many different ways. I am involved in a group here in Washington called Everybody Wins that is a reading mentoring program that many staffers here on the Hill participate in, and, frankly, a number of Members participate in. While I help them with their organizational efforts, I have often felt somewhat guilty that I did not take the time every week to go over to Tyler Elementary School and actually sit down and read, as many of my staff have over the years.

In Ohio, we have a reading program sponsored by Governor Taft called Ohio Reads, and it has involved tens of thousands of adults around the State going into schools and helping children better learn to read and providing a positive role model for those children.

I want to just take a moment to thank all of those who are mentoring around the country today and encourage others to take a more active role. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) pointed out the effects of mentoring, the less likelihood of the use of alcohol and the less likelihood of violent behavior. We know that far too many young people in today's society are growing up without adult role models close to them in their lives. Here is something where mentors can help fill that gap and help improve the lives and the outcomes for many children around our country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud these efforts today and applaud my colleagues for bringing this resolution to the floor. I urge Americans who want to take a more active role in their community to think about mentoring.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for bringing this resolution to the floor once again. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and I and Tony Hall all worked in the Miami Valley area, Greater Dayton area together. And when you think about Tony Hall, there is only one word that comes to mind and that is humanitarian.

When you read the description of humanitarian in the dictionary, it ought to just have Tony Hall's name there. Of all the people I have worked with in the Congress during what is now 15 years, I am not sure that I have worked with someone so dedicated and so focused on trying to help the poor and the needy, not only in his district and around the country but around the world. He is a tireless advocate on behalf of those who are hungry.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) had a CODEL group of us over in Rome. We met with Tony Hall. Tony took us to the U.N. Food Program, and we had long conversations about the needs in various places around the world. And if it was not in Rome, it used to be right here in the back of the Chamber when Tony would stop any one of us to help describe the problems that people were having around the world and here in our country and the need for better nutrition programs and better food distribution programs. So I cannot think of anyone who we should honor in naming this courthouse in Dayton, Ohio, but my good friend and our former colleague, Tony Hall.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this resolution, which shows our Nation's unwavering commitment to both higher education and providing a strong national defense. At no time in recent memory has our country placed more responsibility on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. We are fighting a war on terrorism on multiple fronts, in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it is essential that if we are to be victorious in defending our freedom and protecting our homeland that we promote military service as an option to college students across the United States.

When this Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, the bill made it easier for military recruiters to inform America's high school students about their options to serve their country, while also giving parents a choice about whether or not they want their sons and daughters to be contacted individually by military recruiters.

Now in this resolution we are reiterating the choices given to institutions of higher education. The Solomon Act, originally passed in 1995, grants the Secretary of Defense power to deny Federal funding to institutions of higher learning if they prohibit military recruitment on campus. This law recognizes the importance of having a capable, educated and well-prepared military, one that is ready to defend American liberties such as freedom of speech and higher education.

If we deny Armed Forces recruiters the opportunity to actively recruit in schools, we not only disrespect the sacrifices of military men and women who have made our freedom possible; we also rob our students of the valuable opportunities that military service can be to our Nation and what they can help provide. There is no reason not to allow the Nation's armed services to make their best case to college students and to do so in the same manner as private sector employers that colleges and universities seem to relish having on campus.

Denial of access and equality to military recruiters by colleges that receive Federal funds is an insult to the taxpayers who help subsidize higher education in this country. Many nations have mandatory military service for their citizens. We do not. The very core of our system of homeland security and national defense depends on young men and women deciding that they wish to serve our country.

Successful recruitment of the best officers in our military relies heavily on our military recruiters' access to the best and the brightest. And it seems a bit disingenuous for the elite institutions of higher education, such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, and New York University, to condemn the lack of the wealthy and privileged in the ranks of our military while these schools deny their students the option of even hearing about a career in our United States military.

This resolution should not be politicized. It is a straightforward reaffirmation of our Armed Forces and our students. Congress does not force colleges and universities to accept Federal funding. If an institution of higher learning wishes to bar military recruiters from recruiting, it is free to do so. But Federal funding is not an entitlement and such institutions should not expect that decision to be endorsed and subsidized by the taxpayers of the United States. The resolution reaffirms our commitment to that principle.

And I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for bringing this resolution to the floor and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 23) honoring the contributions of Catholic schools.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 23.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 23, offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). This resolution increases the awareness of Catholic education, while honoring the contributions of America's Catholic schools. They are dedicated to not only educating their students academically but to developing their moral, intellectual, physical, and social values.

January 30 through February 5, 2005, is Catholic Schools Week, an annual tradition in its 31st year, and jointly sponsored by the National Catholic Education Association, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as well. The purpose of this resolution and Catholic Schools Week is to celebrate the vital role Catholic elementary and secondary schools play in providing a values-added education with high standards of quality and excellence to millions of American children.

As President George W. Bush noted last year, ``Catholic educators share the basic conviction that every child can learn,'' which is the grounding principle behind the No Child Left Behind Act.

And these schools continue to demonstrate their faith in every student and commitment to excellence with overwhelming results. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic schools have a graduation rate over 99 percent, and about 97 percent of Catholic high school graduates go on to post-secondary training at 4- year colleges, community colleges, or technical schools.

As a proud product of Catholic education from elementary school through my college years at Xavier University, I have found that my foundation in Catholic education has helped me to strengthen my sense of purpose in life and prepared me to help achieve my goals. My own State of Ohio has more than 500 Catholic schools, including my high school alma mater, Moeller High School, in Cincinnati. In Ohio, Catholic schools serve more than 167,000 students, including more than 51,000 students attending 134 Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.

So I appreciate the great work being done by Catholic schools, their administrators and teachers, as well as their parents and volunteers. Catholic schools carry out their servant mission by building the academic achievement, character, and values of their students. I commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for introducing this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the sponsor of the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a new member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the sponsor of this resolution. I congratulate Catholic Schools all across America for their contribution to our country and pay particular attention today to a group right here in Washington, DC, the City Center Consortium that represents 13 Catholic Schools here in the poorest areas of Washington, DC, where arguably the children need a chance at a decent education more than almost anywhere in America.

These 13 Catholic Schools and these poor communities here in town were threatened to be closed a few years ago, and an organization was set up to try to bring funding to keep these schools open. They happened to be about 95 percent minorities and about almost 90 percent non-Catholic; and having these schools available in these communities has been, I think, a major effort at giving these children here in town, here in Washington, DC, a real chance at a quality education.

I have worked closely with the City Center Consortium for the last 3 or 4 years. They are to be congratulated along with all Catholic Schools across the country in this week of their celebration of Catholic Schools week.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.

Mr. Speaker, elections are divisive activities in our communities, in our States, and in our country. After an election, and after the divisiveness, there needs to be a period of healing to bring our communities, our States, and our Nation back together. I think John Kerry was very graceful in his concession to George Bush to begin the healing process in our country so that when we the Congress come back to work, we have an opportunity to come back together to do the people's work.

That healing period over the last several months has been interrupted by an activity without merit. I think the proceeding today will cause great harm to this institution and great harm to our country at a time when we should be coming together to get ready to do the serious work the American people sent us here to do.

I regret that. The Constitution clearly gives the responsibility for running elections to the States. All the States have their rules and regulations. In Ohio we have heard clearly, it is a very bipartisan process, two Democrats, two Republicans in each of the 88 counties. I have not heard one election official in any of the 88 counties, Democrat or Republican, raise any concern about the outcome or the fairness of the election that occurred in their counties.

If we really want to have a debate about how elections are run, that debate ought to occur at each of the 50 State legislatures where they in fact ought to look at what happened in their State. They ought to be making adjustments. But the election officials are doing the best they can, and I do think that what is happening today is really an indictment of the good work of many of those people in our States.

So I would ask my colleagues, let us get this behind us, quickly; and let us come here to do what the American people sent us here to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

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

Mr. Speaker, as many Members of the House know, I have been involved in civil litigation against another Member of the House, Mr. McDermott of Washington, for many years. That litigation has come to a conclusion of sorts, and because the litigation derives from an incident reflecting our own responsibilities towards each other as Members and, more centrally, to the institution of the People's House, I think it appropriate to report to the House why I initiated the litigation, my attempts to resolve it, and its latest developments.

I bring to your attention an article titled ``McDermott Gets $600,000 Tab in Leak of Illegal Phone Tape,'' from the October 29, 2004 edition of the Seattle Times. The article is generally accurate and comprehensive. Mr. McDermott has himself acknowledged leaking the illegally recorded tape to the media in the manner the article describes, and the quotations attributed to the federal district court judge hearing the case are accurate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore three things. First, I filed the suit to defend the principal that no matter our political differences or our party affiliations, we each owe a duty to each other and the House to honor the laws and rules that govern the House and our Nation. Laws matter. Rules matter. Oaths, such as the oath of confidentiality that the Committee on Standards requires of each of its Members, matter.

Second, more than three years ago I tried to resolve the suit with Mr. McDermott. I had only three requirements: that he admit that what he did was wrong, that he apologize to the House, and that he make a small contribution toward a charity I would designate. These

were the only terms I insisted on. We met several times to discuss each of the matters. But for whatever reason, he felt he could not accept these terms, which appear now to be trifling when compared with the court's punishment.

Third, I recognize that Mr. McDermott has every right to appeal the court's judgment and I would not suggest that appeal would be improper. But when the court's order for payment is final, he should pay it in full and at once. It's worth noting that this entire matter started with an ethics charge against the former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, which was resolved by fining him $300,000. To end that matter once and for all--both for himself and the House--Speaker Gingrich paid the fine in full. The House deserves the same kind of finality here.

[From the Seattle Times]

McDermott Gets $600,000 Tab in Leak of Illegal Phone Tape

(By Alex Fryer)

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ordered

Congressman Jim McDermott to pay $60,000 plus attorney fees

that could total more than $545,000 to a Republican

congressman who sued McDermott for leaking his cellphone

conversations to news reporters.

In a harshly worded decision received by attorneys this

week, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan said McDermott's

``willful and knowing misconduct rises to the level of malice

in this case.''

It is unclear how McDermott, a Seattle Democrat, will pay

for the award if he decides not to appeal it further. He

turned down an offer to settle the case for $10,000 last

summer.

McDermott's lawyers were reviewing the court's decision,

said his press secretary, Mike DeCesare.

A popular liberal lawmaker in a safe Democratic district,

McDermott is expected to win re-election easily and has only

$45,000 in his campaign account.

McDermott's legal-defense fund, formed in the late 1990s to

fight the lawsuit, has about $10, according to his office.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, filed a civil suit against

McDermott in 1998. The case began with Boehner's cellphone

conversation in the parking lot of a Waffle House restaurant

in northern Florida.

During a conference call with Republican leaders, Boehner

talked about the pending Ethics Committee probe of then-House

Speaker Newt Gingrich over the way Gingrich funded a college

course he taught via satellite through a tax-deductible

political-action committee.

A Florida couple intercepted and taped the call and gave it

to McDermott on Jan. 8, 1997.

At the time, McDermott was the highest-ranking Democrat on

the Ethics Committee, which handles complaints against

members of Congress.

McDermott then leaked the tape to The New York Times and

Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The New York Times published a

front-page story Jan. 10, 1997, with the headline: ``Gingrich

is Heard Urging Tactics in Ethics Case.''

Three days later, McDermott resigned from the Ethics

Committee after the Florida couple identified him as the

recipient of the tape.

Gingrich later was fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the

House. He resigned his seat in November 1998.

The couple who gave the tape to McDermott later pleaded

guilty to unlawfully intercepting the call and were fined

$500 each. The Justice Department has never pressed charges

against McDermott.

Boehner sued McDermott, charging the eight-term lawmaker

violated state and federal wiretapping laws.

McDermott won the first legal round when a federal judge

ruled his actions were protected by the First Amendment. The

case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which bounced it back

down to lower courts.

In August, Judge Hogan determined McDermott ``participated

in an illegal transaction'' when he accepted the tape from

the Florida couple, and his actions weren't protected by the

First Amendment.

Prior to the August ruling, Boehner said he was approached

by a lawmaker on McDermott's behalf to broker a settlement.

In an interview during the Republican National Convention

last August, Boehner said he set three conditions for

McDermott: a $10,000 donation to charity, an admission of

guilt, and a letter of apology to the Speaker of House.

Discussions broke down, and Hogan submitted his decision Oct.

22.

``The Court finds that (McDermott's) conduct was malicious

in that he intentionally disclosed the tape to the national

media in an attempt to politically harm the participants

through an invasion of their privacy,'' Hogan wrote.

``(McDermott's) argument that he was acting in the public

interest by exposing official misconduct is unsupported by

the evidence.''

Boehner's office said a settlement now was out of the

question.

``This is full vindication of our view in this case,'' said

Boehner's chief of staff, Mike Sommers. ``We're looking

forward to getting this case behind us.''

Sommers said Boehner spent about $545,000 in legal fees,

paid from his campaign accounts.

``It's all been referred to legal council,'' said DeCesare,

McDermott's press secretary. ``It's a legal decision, and it

needs to be analyzed.''

McDermott's legal-defense account has paid about $350,000

in attorney's fees since the case began, and now owes $21,600

in legal bills, DeCesare said.

Asked if McDermott would embark on a fund-raising campaign

to pay the legal bills, DeCesare replied: ``The only next

step is to let the legal team review the judge's decision and

make a recommendation. It doesn't make sense to speculate on

anything else.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule. The conference report on the reauthorization of IDEA represents the culmination of 3 years of effort to strengthen and renew special education. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), who I have worked closely with over these last 3 years on all of his efforts to help us strengthen and renew this program. I know it is an issue he feels very strongly about, and I want to thank him for his leadership.

I also thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is the subcommittee chairman on the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the author of this bill. He worked this bill through the committee and through the House and through this conference, and without his strong leadership we would not be here today.

I think the bill that we will have before us soon is a tremendous achievement of compromise, vision, determination, and bipartisanship.

I want to thank my partner in this process over the last 4 years, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on our committee. While we have had disagreements on many occasions, in the end I think what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I both believe is we have a responsibility to legislate on education and workforce matters and at the end of the day we were able to come together and produce this bipartisan conference report.

In crafting this bill, we listened to parents, teachers, students, and advocates. We listened to the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and the principles around the creation of this bill are very similar to the principles that the Commission on Excellence in Special Education came forward with as well.

We listened to schools, the people on the front lines of educating children with special needs. We began this process with the principles of No Child Left Behind firmly embedded in our minds. In No Child Left Behind, we put a system in place to ensure that students

with disabilities, along with all students, are getting access to the education that they deserve. In this bill, we are making sure that the rules help special education teachers and parents get the most out of that system, instead of making it harder for them.

This bill is an across-the-board win for parents, teachers and students with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to support the rule today.

I will have more to say when we get into the bill itself about the changes made in this bill that truly will help students with special needs, their parents, and the teachers and school administrators who often in the past have been at serious conflict. We attempt to reduce that conflict in this bill to make it easier for these students to get an education and make it easier for school administrators and special ed teachers to be able to provide these services to the most special of our children.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 858, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1350.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the H.R. 1350 conference report. Three years ago we began a process to strengthen and improve special education for the 6\1/2\ million American students participating under the Individuals with Disability Education Act. Today we have a final reform bill that will help us achieve that goal. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform of my committee was the author of this bill that we passed in the House in April of 2003. I think he deserves great credit for his leadership throughout this process. He wrote a good bill and worked to ensure that these important reforms will be enacted in a bipartisan manner. The final bill we produced is closely aligned with the findings of President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and with the bill that we passed in the House again in April of 2003.

We set out with one fundamental goal in mind, and that was to improve the educational results for students with disabilities. And I believe that we have accomplished that goal with the bill that we have before us today.

We included important provisions to give parents more choices and greater control when it comes to their child's education. We increased the focus on academic results and more closely aligned special education with the No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind Act was the most sweeping Federal education reform in decades for students with disabilities. For the first time we ensured that States would include children with disabilities in their accountability systems. We made it clear that all children, and I

mean all children, including those with disabilities, deserve a high- quality education.

The bill before us today will build on No Child Left Behind. We are making sure the rules under IDEA helps special education teachers, parents, and students get the most out of that system instead of making it harder for them. To support teachers and schools, we included steps to reduce the crushing paperwork burden that is keeping teachers out of the classroom and in many cases driving teachers out of the profession altogether. We also restore common sense to school discipline to keep schools safe for all students and hold students accountable for their actions. Students will have the same punishment for the same infraction unless the disciplinary problem is the direct result of a child's disability.

We also give States and schools the clarity they have been seeking on what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. In No Child Left Behind we said that every child shall learn from a highly qualified teacher and children in special ed are no exception. We added flexibility, though, for States and teachers to meet the highly qualified definition when it comes to special ed teachers, but we did not do anything to slow down the progress States are making in reaching that goal. We are going to cut down on costly and unnecessary litigation in special education, and we are going to hold attorneys liable for frivolous lawsuits. That is important because we need to restore a sense of trust between parents and schools. We want to encourage cooperation to do what is best for students and to get there we need to cut down on damaging lawsuits.

Our bill also puts the Federal Government on a 6-year glide path to reaching our original goal of funding up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students with special needs. And as we get closer to that goal, we are also going to give local communities more control over how they spend their own local dollars. And we are keeping special education funded through the discretionary appropriations process.

I just want to take a moment to thank a number of people. As I mentioned before, I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his hard work. But we would not be here without the help of several other people. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), while we had disagreements on the House-passed bill, we came together at this late hour of this session to do what our job is to do, and that is to reauthorize this law and to do it in such a way to bring a bipartisan product to the floor of the House today.

But it would not have been possible without the help of the other body, and I have to thank the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee Judd Gregg for his willingness to work with us and the ranking member of that committee, Senator Ted Kennedy. We had a small window of opportunity, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I sat down with Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy and looked them in the eye and said we are going to be fair, we are going to do this right, and if we work together, we can in fact produce a strong bill, which we have. And we would not be here without the help of all of those people involved.

I also want to thank some of my staff and others who have worked on this. David Cleary, without whose help we would not be here at all, period. He did a great job in guiding this process. Melanie Looney on my staff, and also I want to thank Sally Lovejoy, who heads up our education section; Krisann Pearce, who I referred to as the adult the other day. I should probably refer to her as the calming, steady influence over some of my more hyperactive staff. And I want to thank Brad Thomas, who joined us just a couple of months ago and got thrown in into this process at the end.

From the gentleman from Delaware's (Mr. Castle) office, Sarah Rittling and from the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) office I want to thank Alex Nock for his great work as well.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next step in our effort to reform education in America, and I think it is going to make a real difference in the lives of millions of American students who are participating in special education. And as most of my colleagues know, I have gotten rather passionate about this. I am beginning to sound more like the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) than the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) himself. But I do believe that all kids deserve a chance at a good education regardless of their color, regardless of where they grew up, or regardless if they may have a disability. And I think the bill that we have today does in fact move us in a direction to help more kids, especially special ed kids, to get a chance at good education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 1350 conference report. Three years ago we began a process to strengthen and improve special education for the six and a half million American students participating under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Today, we have a final reform bill that will help us achieve that goal.

Representative Castle was the author of the bill we passed in the House in April of 2003, and he deserves great credit for his leadership throughout the process. He wrote a good bill, and he worked to ensure these important reforms will be enacted in a bipartisan manner.

The final bill we produced is closely aligned with the findings of President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and with the bill we passed in the House in April of 2003. We set out with one fundamental goal in mind: to improve educational results for students with disabilities. I believe this bill will accomplish that goal.

We included important provisions to give parents more choices and greater control when it comes to their children's education. We increased the focus on academic results, and more closely aligned special education with the No Child Left Behind Act.

The No Child Left Behind Act was the most sweeping Federal education reform in decades for students with disabilities. For the first time, we ensured States would include children with disabilities in their accountability systems. We made it clear that all children, including children with disabilities, deserve a high quality education.

The bill before us today will build on NCLB. We're making sure the rules under IDEA help special education teachers and parents get the most out of that system, instead of making it harder for them.

To support teachers and schools, we included steps to reduce the crushing paperwork burden that is keeping teachers out of the classroom. We also restored common sense to school discipline to keep schools safe for all students, and hold students accountable for their actions. Students will have the same punishment for the same infraction, unless the discipline problem is the direct result of a child's disability.

We also give States and schools the clarity they have been seeking on what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. In No Child Left Behind, we said every child should learn from a highly qualified teacher. Children in special education are no exception. We added flexibility for States and teachers to meet the highly qualified definition, but we didn't do anything to slow down the progress States are making to reach that goal.

We're going to cut down on costly and unnecessary litigation in special education, and we're going to hold attorneys liable for frivolous lawsuits. That's important, because we need to restore a sense of trust between parents and schools. We want to encourage cooperation to do what is best for students. To get there, we need to cut down on damaging lawsuits.

I also want to point out one oversight. A sentence in the Statement of Managers' language of the Conference Report that provided the explanation for the attorneys' fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231 sections detailing the limited circumstances in which LEAs and SEAs can recover attorneys' fees, specifically Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III), the Conferees intend to codify the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). According to Christiansburg, attorneys' fees may only be awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad faith.

Our bill also puts the Federal government on a 6-year glide path to reaching our original funding goal of up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students with disabilities. As we get closer to that goal, we're also going to give local communities more control over how they spend their own, local dollars. And we're keeping special education funded through the discretionary appropriations process.

I'd like to take a moment to thank members of the staff who have been so instrumental in producing this great bill. With my staff, I'd like

to thank David Cleary and Melanie Looney, who did a remarkable job crafting this bill and negotiating the final conference report. I'd also like to thank Sally Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, and Brad Thomas. From Representative Castle's office I'd like to thank Sarah Rittling, and from Representative Miller's office I'd like to thank Alex Nock.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next step in our effort to reform education in America. It will make a real difference in the lives of millions of American students participating in special education. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, with the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a commitment to America's students, parents, and schools. We said that every child in America deserves a high quality education, and no child should be left behind.

I think that commitment was particularly important to students with disabilities. For too many years, these students have been allowed to fall between the cracks. Many States excluded them from accountability systems, wrongly assuming these children can't learn.

They can learn, and they should. They deserve the same high quality education as the rest of this Nation's students. They deserve the same high quality teachers, and the same focus on their academic results.

H.R. 1350 fulfills that vision. It says that special education is important. It makes clear that we must focus on breaking down bureaucracy and building up results. This is an important bill for students participating in special education, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform and the author of the bill that we have before us who has done a great job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), one of our conferees working this bill out between the House and Senate and someone who has worked on this since he came to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee, a conferee, and one who feels passionately about this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of our committee, the coach.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of the Ohio delegation and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 years that I have had the pleasure of chairing the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I think we have come an awful long way in terms of transforming the Federal role in education and trying to help all of our kids in our country get a chance at a good education. And I think we have been fortunate to be able to do almost all of this in a broad bipartisan way.

The bill before us today is the result of a lot of commitment and hard work on the part of Members on both sides of the aisle. And while we have heard an awful lot of talk about IDEA and how we are transforming it, I think there is one important point that continues to be lost on many people. When we passed No Child Left Behind, we created a new paradigm for how we are going to judge the education of our special-needs students.

By disaggregating data in four subgroups in each school, including those with special needs, what we have done is we have asked schools to focus on results for our special education students as opposed to being burdened with a lot of paperwork, dotting I's, crossing T's and worrying about lawsuits. Now schools are judged on the results that they produce for these children.

There was some resistance to this, of course, because we still have people in America who think that students with special needs cannot learn. But that is nonsense, and I think all of us understand that have worked on this that these children can learn, and should learn, and society and our country owe them an opportunity to learn.

So schools now are having to produce results. And as a result the Individuals With Disabilities and Education Act itself had to be more integrated with No Child Left Behind, which we have

done in this conference report; and we needed to take the shackles off of our local school administrators and teachers so that they could focus on producing results as opposed to dotting more I's and crossing more T's and having the burdens of paperwork and lawsuits coming at them.

So I am proud of the bill that we have before us. It is not exactly what I would do, certainly not exactly what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) would want. But that brings me to my last point.

The Congress, over the last few years, the last several sessions, let us call it 5 years, 6 years, 8 years, has been gripped in an awful lot of partisan strife. And what we have shown on No Child Left Behind, what we have shown on the Child Nutrition Act reauthorization we had earlier this year, the Vote Rehabilitation Act, and again today on IDEA reauthorization is that we can in fact work together.

I really do want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat. He referred to us last night in the Committee on Rules as the political odd couple, and we are. I would describe myself as a mainstream conservative Republican, the gentleman from California I would describe as a liberal Democrat. Neither one of us is shy about our opinions. But there is an issue here that I think can help not only the progress in our own committee but the progress in this House, and that is to learn to trust one another.

The gentleman from California and I began this process, this journey, 4 years ago by developing a trust with each other. And while we may disagree on many issues every day, he and I both know that we can trust each other and trust our word. I went to the gentleman from California and I went to Senators Ted Kennedy and Judd Gregg back in September. And as highly partisan as things were leading up to the election, I looked them in this eye and said we can do this. We can do this if we trust each other, all work together, and there is a small opening that we may actually be able to finish this bill this year.

The reason we are here today is because we did in fact trust one another. We worked together. And I think once again we have produced an example of what can occur in this House each and every day if we are willing to put our partisan differences aside once in a while and think about why we are here and the trust and responsibilities that the American people have given us in order to do their work and not ours.

I thank all my colleagues.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 524) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make certain corrections to the enrollment of H.R. 1350, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank my colleague for yielding. This concurrent resolution allows the Enrolling Clerk to make a technical correction to the conference report on H.R. 1350.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the YMCA Retirement Fund Act, a bill sponsored by Mr. English. Strengthening employee pension plans has been a longstanding priority of mine, and I'm pleased to support this common sense reform that will strengthen pension benefits provided through the YMCA Retirement Fund.

This bill will ensure the Young Men's Christian Association's pension plans are treated as church plans under the Internal Revenue Code, and its employees are provided many of the important protections under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (``ERISA'').

The YMCA Retirement Fund has been in existence for more than eighty years, and provides meaningful pension benefits to more than 80,000 participants across the nation. Employees of local YMCA's participate in these pension plans and enjoy a vesting period of either two or three years. These employees obtain a non-forfeitable right to their pension benefits faster than employees under traditional qualified plans.

I'm pleased today to support this bill to ensure the YMCA Retirement Fund may continue providing these important pension benefits to its employees, many of whom will now also benefit from the important protections provided under ERISA.

Under the bill, the pension plans in the Fund may commingle assets for investment purposes. While there may be certain restrictions on this practice under the Internal Revenue Code, it is important to note that it is not a per se violation to commingle assets under ERISA, provided that the plan and its fiduciaries maintain appropriate records. Therefore, the language should not suggest that other qualified pension plans under ERISA cannot engage in this widely accepted practice.

If the YMCA Retirement Fund's status as a church plan under the Internal Revenue Code is not clarified for this narrow purpose, the Fund may not have the ability to continue to provide the same generous pension benefits to its participants, most of whom are modestly paid.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that while this legislation will solve a problem for the more than 80,000 Americans involved with the YMCA pension plan, the laws that govern all American worker pensions will remain outdated and in desperate need of reform and repair. The failure to update these laws has resulted in a very real threat that taxpayers will be forced to pay for a multi-billion bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which protects workers' retirement benefits when their companies fail. It's absolutely critical that we act in a bipartisan manner in the weeks and months ahead to enact comprehensive, broad-based reforms that will modernize our nation's pension laws and restore security for workers and taxpayers. This is a top priority for me and the members of our committee, and I know it is for Chairman Thomas and the members of the Ways and Means Committee as well.

I want to thank Chairman Thomas and the bill's sponsor, Mr. English, for their cooperation in bringing this bill to the House floor today. I'm hopeful that we can build on this important legislation, and continue our efforts to craft a solution that will protect the retirement security of all our nation's workers in the same serious and thoughtful manner that produced the bill we're considering today.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House on H.R. 1350 be permitted until midnight to file a conference report on H.R. 1350.