Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act is the right thing to do at the right time. As I said, this closes the loophole for lenders billing the 9.5 percent floor on special allowance by prohibiting this billing on loans from bonds that have been refunded, refinanced, extended, matured, retired, or defeased, on or after October 1, 2004 and before January 1, 2006. Also prohibited is the billing of 9.5 percent floor special allowance by the holder for all loans sold or otherwise pledged, refinanced or transferred to another holder as defined in the Higher Education Act (HEA) on or after October 1, 2004 and before January 1, 2006. While it does allow for limited billing on recycled loans, that billing is permitted only on loans financed by pre-1993 tax-exempt bonds, or within such tax-exempt refunded bonds done prior to October 1, 2004, and only for the duration of these bonds. These prospective changes take a major step in closing the window to these subsidies for loan providers. This bill redirects the savings realized from this change to one of this country's greatest resources--highly qualified teachers. This bill also allows Congress to continue its work on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to ensure any permanent changes made to this issue are done so with open debate and clear consideration of the students we want to assist in reaching their higher education goals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4850, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, which continues to open the door of educational opportunity for the students in our nation's capital. This measure fully funds the DC School Choice Incentive Act which is fundamentally about providing new options and new hope for students and families trapped in a school system that is struggling to survive.

Since the DC School Choice Incentive Program was enacted in January 2004, the Department of Education conducted a grant competition for the administration of the program and has awarded the Washington Scholarship Fund (WSF) the opportunity to run the groundbreaking new endeavor.

And WSF is off to a strong start. More than 2,680 students applied for scholarships for the 2004-2005 school year, and over 1,840 of those students met the eligibility requirements and completed their applications. In the middle of June, a lottery was held and scholarships were awarded to 1,360 students. Of the eligible public school students, only 194 public school students did not receive scholarships because of the limitation on available space in grades 6- 12.

Currently there are 53 District of Columbia private, religious and independent schools participating in the program in the 2004-2005 school year. I am pleased that many of the scholarship students have chosen to attend schools in the Center City Consortium--a group of 13 inner city DC Catholic elementary schools within the Archdiocese of Washington located in the most financially challenged neighborhoods in the District. These schools work to ensure that Catholic education continues to be available to all city families, and have enthusiastically begun to educate over 500 scholarship students.

The WSF is continuing its efforts aggressively to make sure families are aware of the scholarships available for the coming school year. With more time to prepare for this fall, the program expects more schools to participate in 2005-2006, more seats to be available, and more parents to apply.

The strength of this program is that it will not only benefit individual students and their families, but the entire education system in the District of Columbia. Everyone agrees that the public school system will remain the primary source of education for a majority of these students. We cannot, and will not, support a proposal that would harm these schools.

My colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen, has provided tremendous leadership in ensuring that the bill before us continues to provide new money and new options that offers the neediest students opportunities they never had before, and more importantly, provides both increased competition and an infusion of funding that will help revitalize an entire system and help it to better serve each and every student.

The bill continues to appropriate substantial new funding--and let's be clear, this is still new money; we're not draining a single dollar from the public school system in the District. The funding is the full appropriation for the DC school improvement program--giving $13 million for public school improvements, $13 million for charter schools and $14 million for opportunity scholarships to promote academic achievement and school choice.

This measure allows us the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of students and families in the District of Columbia. I'm proud of the measure before us and grateful for the work of Chairman Frelinghuysen in ensuring the full appropriation. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of students and families and the entire educational system in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my neighbors in Butler County, Ohio for renaming a park at the former site of the Voice of America's Bethany station ``Ronald Reagan's Voice of Freedom Park.'' This park is enjoyed by Butler County families each and every day, and it has been made all the more special by the fact that it is located on the same spot from where Voice of America broadcasts originated from 1944 to 1994.

In many ways, this ``name change'' isn't much of a ``name change'' at all. Ronald Reagan was and in many ways still is the Voice of America.

It's that voice which brought us back from the Vietnam era and the malaise of the 1970s. It's that voice that urged Mr. Gorbachev to

``tear down this wall.'' And it's that voice that ended the Cold War through his policy of ``peace through strength.''

So, we're not marking the end of one name for this park and beginning of a new one. Instead, we're celebrating the passage of title from one Cold War messenger of freedom to another. Ronald Reagan recognized what an effective and influential tool the Voice of America was in our battle to end the Cold War. In fact, in 1983 he delivered an address via Voice of America, in which he outlined his vision for long- term negotiations with the Soviet Union. He recognized the vital role Voice of America played in our struggle against the Soviets, and he used it to the advantage of our nation and our fight for freedom.

Last week, another American President--George W. Bush--spoke in that park. He spoke of a different battle--this time against the evils of terrorism--in which we are currently engaged. Just like the Cold War, it will be a long struggle--but one which we know we will win. Why? Because we have the same message of freedom on our side that we did when Reagan and the Voice of America led us to victory against communism. And so that message of freedom and the Voice of America continues, in that park and across the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends back home in Butler County who were involved in the effort to place President Reagan's name on the park. In this year of tributes to a man I know as a hero, I can think of very few higher than this one.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5185) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5185.

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

Mr. 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. That is why the Federal investment in the Higher Education Act is so important.

For 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 college education. We have made great progress, but, unfortunately, we were not able to complete our work.

Today I stand in support of the Higher Education Extension Act so we can ensure these vital programs continue to serve American students. Yet I regret we were not able to accomplish a full reauthorization.

In May, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I introduced the College Access and Opportunity Act to complete the Higher Education Act reauthorization. That bill was the final piece of our comprehensive effort to expand the 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 extend access for current and future students, and restore fairness so that all student borrowers could be treated equally. Consumer protections for borrowers would have been strengthened, and red tape would have been reduced. And because accountability is the cornerstone of education reform, colleges and universities would have been held more accountable to the students, parents, and taxpayers they serve through increased sunshine and transparency.

Yet, none of these reforms will be enacted today because partisan politics got in the way of student-focused reforms. 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, strengthening them to expand college access.

Mr. 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 we can meet the needs of current and future students. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and work with us in the coming year to complete a comprehensive reform package so that we can better serve American students pursuing the dream of a college education.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

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

Let me thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle. We have been locked in a really difficult situation trying to come to an agreement on the reauthorization of this bill. But it is not just here. I think we could have overcome our differences, but clearly there was no action in the other body, and we have no choice but to extend the Higher Education Act, which the underlying bill here today does.

This is important to millions of low- and middle-income American students who depend on Pell grants and student loans to achieve their dream of a college education. I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5186) to reduce certain special allowance payments and provide additional teacher loan forgiveness on Federal student loans, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5186.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House has an opportunity to pass a bill that will protect taxpayers, support school teachers and help poor schools ensure every student has the opportunity to learn from a qualified teacher.

I want to particularly thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for the vital roles they have played for bringing this bill to the floor.

For more than 10 years, a complex Federal policy known as the 9.5 percent ``special allowance'' has resulted in excess taxpayer subsidies for some student loan providers. This policy was adopted under the Clinton administration, and while some would call it a loophole, the loan providers were told by the Clinton administration that it was perfectly legal and legitimate.

The excess taxpayer subsidies being paid under this policy have in recent years begun to balloon, and if we fail to act, billions of dollars in excess taxpayer subsidies will be paid to student loan providers legally.

Now, this may be technically legal but I think it is unfair to taxpayers and unfair to students, and it is unfair to the schools, people who should be the beneficiaries of this funding. When you boil it down, it is just plain bad policy.

Eight months ago President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to shut down these excess taxpayer subsidies. The Bush administration noted that ending the excess subsidies without legislation was likely to take at least 2 years. Because of the precedents established under the previous administration, it would take the administration 2 years to end the policy without legislation. Two years is too long to wait.

So the President asked Congress to pass legislation this year that would allow the 9.5 percent subsidies to be stopped now.

The legislation before us should be a no-brainer. It is called the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act because that is exactly what it will do. The bill will protect taxpayers by shutting down the excess subsidies to lenders, as the President has asked, and it will use the money to help teachers and poor schools across the country.

Rural and urban schools are confronting a shortage of qualified teachers in key subjects. This shortage is very serious and particularly hurts schools in our poorest communities.

According to the most recent data available from the National Center for Education Statistics, 67 percent of our public middle and high schools have vacancies in special education, 70 percent had vacancies in mathematics, 61 percent had vacancies in biological or life sciences. And according to the Committee For Economic Development, almost a third of high school math classes are taught by teachers who did not major or even minor in mathematics. For biology it is 45 percent, and in life sciences the percentage rises to 60 percent.

President Bush has repeatedly asked Congress to create new incentives for good teachers to teach in our poorest schools. The President has asked that we increase the amount of loan forgiveness that is available to qualified teachers in these key subjects who agree to teach for at least 5 years in our poorest schools. The President wants us to increase loan relief for the teachers from the current maximum of $5,000 to a new maximum of $17,500, more than triple the amount that is currently available.

The President asked us to do this after the No Child Left Behind Act became law. And he asked for it again last week in Springfield, Ohio, where I was with him at an education event.

Under this bill we will shut down the excess subsidies for now and use the money to provide loan relief for highly qualified teachers in high-needs schools, helping our schools deal with the teacher shortage.

The House last year overwhelmingly passed legislation written by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) that called for similar teacher loan relief. Shutting off these excess subsidies now via this bill will also pave the way for us to devote billions of dollars over the next several years to college access programs for low- and middle- income students.

This was the original intent of the bill introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I back in May. And that bill, the College Access and Opportunity Act, would permanently shut down the excess subsidies as part of a comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

We continue to believe a long-term, multiyear reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is the proper vehicle for ensuring that the 9.5 percent subsidies stay shut down, because it would ensure that billions of dollars are used to expand college access for low- and middle-income students.

Let us make no mistake about this. We are closing the loophole, and once it is closed, it is not coming back. The only question today is whether Democrats and Republicans can agree on how the money should be used within the Higher Education Act.

We could not find an agreement on the big question of the reauthorizing the bill this year, and unfortunately, this looks like that debate will continue into next year. But in the meantime this bill gives us the chance to close down the subsidies now and use the money for something we can all agree is a worthy cause.

Now, there are some who say this bill does not go far enough. They contend it should shut down subsidies retroactively. Let me say, here is the problem with that.

Shutting the 9.5 percent subsidies down retroactively will not just affect the big kids on the block, those in the student loan business who do it for a profit. It will affect smaller, nonprofit student aid providers all across America, nonprofit organizations that were told years ago by the Federal Government that this practice is 100 percent legal and legitimate. And as we will see

as this debate goes on, we are talking about nonprofit student aid organizations from all over the country, whether it be the big student aid organization in California, where 85 percent of their effort is aimed at minority children, and Texas, Arizona, all across the country.

Over the past few days Congress has heard an earful from nonprofit student aid providers warning that retroactive cuts would hurt students and families that need help paying for college. We have heard from Chela in California and we have heard from a provider in South Texas. Half of their loans go to Hispanic students, all needy students.

We have heard from nonprofit providers in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Oklahoma. ``Cuts in these subsidies, especially retroactive cuts, would immediately cause a negative impact to Iowa students,'' warned a nonprofit organization in Iowa.

Now, we need to shut down the subsidies, but we need to make sure that we are not shutting down nonprofit student aid organizations in the process. And if we go any further than what we propose in this bill, I think we are going to hurt the very families and students that we are actually trying to help.

So I would urge my colleagues to support the measure on the floor today. It is the right thing to do for our taxpayers, teachers and American students.

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

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

I would remind my colleagues that we are less than 4 weeks from a Presidential election and an election for all of us who serve here in the House. We all know what happens when we get to the eve of election. We all find religion.

Now, the President called for the elimination of this 9.5 percent subsidy back in February. I have been working on this for a year. It was in the gentleman from California's (Mr. McKeon) and my bill that we introduced back in May, and my colleagues on the other side want to criticize us for not acting sooner. Yet, the substitute, or their own higher education reauthorization, never even addressed this very subject.

Now, I would say to my colleagues it takes two to tango, and they all know how things get done around here. We need to work together.

The criticism about this bill not going far enough, I think, is well understood by Members on both sides of the aisle. While, in fact, it may shut down some subsidies that go to for-profit lenders, the problem we have is those lenders in the nonprofit sector who use that money to aid students and needy students will be burned in the process, and I think we take a great risk in going down that path today.

That is why the bill that we have before us shuts these things down, these 9.5 percent loans, for the next year and allows us, in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, to make sure that when we shut these 9.5 percent loans down permanently, we do so in a way that we do not hurt the nonprofit community that helped many low-income and needy students around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at what happens during political silly season here in the Nation's Capital.

Here we are on the eve of an election and we are going to have a virtual unanimous vote on this bill. Even though my colleagues on the other side have criticized it so much, for a bill that sounds as bad as they have criticized it, I am wondering why they are going to vote for it.

But I want to say, Welcome. Welcome. They are taking credit for stumbling across this billion-dollar excess subsidies when we have been working on this for about a year to try to shut this down in a reasonable and responsible way. And while I know that people want to go all the way and shut it down and be really tough, what about those nonprofit student aid organizations around the country who have these loans, who use those excess profits to help low-income students and mostly minority students all over the country?

Let us stop the nonsense. Let us get on to do the people's work. By passage of this bill today, we will end this practice for the most part for the next year, use those savings to help expand the need for high quality teachers in title I schools in math, science and special ed, and help more students get a better chance at an education.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise as Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee to add my voice to my voice to my distinguished California colleagues in paying tribute to the Festival of Children Foundation.

I believe the exceptional contributions and services of the Festival Foundation--both to the community and to the State of California-- deserves national recognition. The Festival is a good example of private, non-profit groups and charities coming together to serve the public interest--in this case for the benefit of children. Mr. Speaker, the Education committee is always looking for children's programs that are creative, voluntary and community based. Helping our young people-- whether it be in the area of children's education, health care, personal development or special needs--should be our highest calling.

This month-long Festival will bring together over 50 private, charitable organizations all under one roof. The goal is to improve collaboration, provide free resources and offer a forum for issues ranging from children's health care to the arts. It has become an invaluable resource for children's charities in Orange County, California.

I commend Sandy Segerstrom Daniels for her leadership in founding the Festival and the Foundation. It is truly a model for other communities in our country to follow.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. The gentleman's amendment violates House rule XXI, clause 2 and legislates on an appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the author of the amendment. The gentleman's amendment restricts the Secretary of Labor from implementing certain overtime protections in current regulations. As of August 23, Mr. Chairman, the old regulations are no longer on the books.

So my question for the gentleman from Wisconsin is: Would your amendment, as a matter of law, require the Secretary of Labor to return to the regulations as in effect on July 14, 2004?

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are you suggesting to me that I cannot ask the author of the amendment to explain the intent of his amendment?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, as a matter of law, would restrict the Secretary from proceeding on the new regulations and, in effect, require the Secretary to enforce the old regulations that had not been updated for 50 years. In fact, this is legislating on an appropriation bill, and I insist on my point of order.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Based on the gentleman's explanation of his amendment, Mr. Chairman, prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the new regulations, we have, in effect, if the gentleman's amendment were to pass, no regulations protecting the overtime rights of American workers. No regulations. That is the law that is being created here.

I am trying to understand from the gentleman his true intent in his amendment and if, in fact, he is not trying to have the Secretary enforce the old regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I hope all of my colleagues heard the short debate over the intent of this regulation. The fact of the matter is if the Obey amendment passes, no American worker who makes over $23,600 will be entitled to overtime pay. This will be no enforcement of the regulations that the gentleman seeks to try to protect.

Under the Obey amendment, the Secretary of Labor is prohibited from protecting workers' overtime as required by her current regulations, and she will be forced to start the regulatory process over in order to develop new regulations to ensure those protections.

Under the Obey amendment, by the gentleman's own admission, the Department would have no test to administer the rules except for the salary level at $23,600. This means the Department would be prevented from looking at workers' duties to determine whether they were eligible for overtime pay. His amendment would prevent the Department from enforcing the rule with respect to any worker, even blue collar workers, who earn less than $23,600 a year. That means firefighters, teachers and nurses who make over $23,600 would have no ability to have the Department protect their overtime pay. And the enforcement for anyone earning more than $23,600 would have to be done in private lawsuits and be the biggest gift to trial lawyers that the House has considered in some time.

So the fact is that in an attempt to legislate on an appropriation bill, the gentleman's amendment would in fact eliminate the Department's ability to enforce any rules or regulations on overtime pay for anyone who makes over $23,600 per year. I do not think that the House wants to be on record in support of that.

Now, on the bigger issue under consideration here, we need to understand that for some 56 years we have had the wage-and-hour law and for the last 50 years there have been no changes to the job classifications. So American workers have no idea under the old regulations whether they were entitled to overtime pay or not, employers had a very difficult time determining whether workers were entitled to overtime pay or not, and the most serious part of the old regulations was that the Department of Labor could not determine who was entitled to overtime pay and who was not.

In 1977, the Carter administration recognized this problem and attempted to bring clarity to the wage-and-hour laws with regard to overtime pay. What happened, Congress stepped in their way. So since 1977 the picture has only gotten muddier. With job classifications and job titles changing, especially with what has happened over the last 20 years, it is time for the Department to do their work, and the Department did their work. They put out a regulation, an initial draft of a regulation, they took comments from the public, and they got 82,000 comments.

They came back some 18 months later and made serious revisions to their draft policy and put it into effect on August 23 of this year.

It not only guarantees those who make under $23,600 a year they have a right to overtime pay regardless of their job classification; 1.3 million workers will be covered under that part of the section. The gentleman does not touch that. But it also guarantees overtime rights for teachers, first responders, fire, police, and many other job classifications to bring real clarity to the law so both employers and employees know what their rights are under the law today.

But, unfortunately, that is not what this amendment is really about today. The gentleman's amendment, if you read it and if you look at it, would eliminate all the overtime enforcement protections from the Department of Labor for anyone who makes over $23,600 a year. I do not think the House wants to go on record in supporting the elimination of those protections from the Department of Labor, so I would ask my colleagues, as they consider this vote today, consider that these overtime protections that are in the law are there to help American workers. If you are on the side of American workers, and especially those who are entitled to overtime pay, we ought to vote against the Obey amendment and protect those rights and the enforcement of those rights by the Department of Labor.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, Members should understand that the new rules that went into effect on August 23, in my opinion, will guarantee more overtime for more American workers than the rules that were in effect prior to that. It is because we guarantee anyone making up to $23,660 overtime regardless of what their position is, where it was only $8,060 before that. I think the clarity that comes with these new rules will help better protect the American workers.

I just received a letter from the U.S. Department of Labor, the Solicitor's Office. Let me quote in part:

``The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed this proposed amendment and analyzed its legal and practical effect. The proposed funding amendment will not repeal the new regulation that went into effect on August 23, 2004--employers will continue to determine an employee's eligibility for overtime according to the new tests. Rather, as we explain below, the amendment will essentially serve only to prevent the Department from using its enforcement resources to protect the overtime rights of any employee who earnings $455 or more per week.''

Going on further in the letter they say: ``Although we have not been able to obtain a copy, we understand that the Congressional Research Service provided an opinion in August that the funding rider would 'require' DOL to 'immediately rescind' the final rule. This claim is contrary to settled case law, the APA, and, most importantly, the plain language of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment only restricts the Department's ability to spend funds to enforce the new, stronger overtime protections, but does not affect the validity of the rule and has no impact on private enforcement of the new regulations under section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Simply put, the amendment would not require the Department to take any action to repeal the new rules, and the Department will not repeal the final rule-- because to do so would deprive workers of the new, stronger overtime protections.''

Continuing: ``Because the amendment essentially restricts the use of funds to implement or administer the new regulations, the proposed amendment would prevent the Department from conducting investigations or enforcing any of the provisions of the new regulations except those at 29 C.F.R. 541.600. The proposed funding restrictions will also preclude the Department of Labor from providing any information or assistance to employees or employers as to the new overtime rules. As an example, we will be powerless to bring an enforcement action on behalf of a licensed practical nurse making $460 a week who claims that he or she was not paid for substantial amounts of overtime worked after August 23, 2004.

``Even if the Department were prohibited from enforcing the new regulations, the Department would still have no legal authority to enforce the old rules because the old regulations were superseded as of August 23, and, thus, are no longer in effect.''

The point here is that the last two times this amendment has been on the floor, existing regulations were in place, but when the new rules went in place the old regulations went out of existence, and if the Obey amendment were in fact to pass today, we would essentially strip the Department of Labor's ability to enforce the new regulations and to protect the overtime rights of American men and women. I do not think that is what we want to do.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty clear in the Solicitor's letter from the Department of Labor that they do not share the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. The fact of the matter is that even if they did, the gentleman's amendment, the Obey amendment, would preclude, would preclude the Department of Labor from advising employees, advising employers, and enforcing the law for anyone who makes over $23,660 per year. It would preclude that action and that help for 1 year, under the gentleman's amendment.

I do not think we want to eliminate these protections and the enforcement of these protections by the Department of Labor.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague for the time and let me congratulate him on his amendment. I think his amendment is a reasonable solution to a growing problem and deserves our support.

Simply put, it reverses a jurisdictional land grab by the National Labor Relations Board that would reverse 30 years of policy and precedent which held that jobs on reservations are not subject to the Federal labor board's jurisdiction because tribes are sovereign nations.

Until recently, the NLRB held that the National Labor Relations Act did not extend jurisdiction over tribal activities that were located on Native American lands, consistently holding for years that tribes are units of government and exempt from Federal labor law. If tribal activities occurred off Native American lands, the NLRB had discretionary jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act, which it would assert if it was appropriate. Yet, earlier this year, the NLRB took the unusual step of ruling that it had the authority to settle a labor dispute on Native American land.

In this case, the NLRB held that it has discretionary jurisdiction over all tribal activities whether located on or off Native American land, which it would now assert on a case-by-case basis. Now, this is a critical blow to tribal sovereignty, and I believe that the effect of the gentleman's amendment would be to stay this decision by the NLRB. Those conversations that are under way can continue to see if there is some way to come to some agreement on this; but to let this decision stand I think is a mistake, and I think the gentleman's amendment has an awful lot of merit.

The Federal Government has passed numerous laws to enhance tribal self-determination and give Native Americans the ability to govern themselves from intrusive Federal interference. It is simply irrational for Congress to declare that tribes should govern themselves and then take away their ability to do so. Restoring this fundamental right, I think, is the right thing to do.

The amendment before us simply reverses the erroneous NLRB decision and restores tribal sovereignty, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee amendment.

In February of this year, President Bush called on Congress to end the 9.5 percent floor interest rate subsidy paid to some lenders in the student loan program. The 9.5 percent floor was supposed to be phased out beginning in 1993, but through a bureaucratic move by the Clinton administration Department of Education, the practice has continued.

We followed the President's lead earlier this year when we introduced the College Access and Opportunity Act and called for the elimination of these 9.5 percent loans, which in my view and the administration's view and the view of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) are being abused by some lenders in order to get an extra subsidy on the student loans that they process.

I would welcome the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to the efforts we have put forward throughout this year to eliminate the 9.5 percent floor, and urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the other members of the Committee on Appropriations for a job well done on what is a very large bill and a very difficult bill.

There has been much said today about education, and the good news is No Child Left Behind is working and working very well. As we see the preliminary results coming in from around the country, we are seeing increased test scores in both reading and math, especially for our most disadvantaged children. If we look at where the Federal education dollars go, by and large, they are aimed at those very children, those disadvantaged children who need that extra help to have a chance at a good education.

But while the news is good from No Child Left Behind and test scores are going up, there has been this chorus of criticism from some of my colleagues about the fact that it is underfunded and we are not spending enough. It is easy to stand here in the well of the House and talk about how the glass is half empty, but I am here to suggest it is almost full.

If we look at this bill, there is a $2 billion increase in overall education funding in this bill, bringing the total amount for education spending to the Department to $57.7 billion. Now that means in President Bush's first term in office, in just 4 years, the Department of Education's overall funding will have increased by $15.5 billion. If we look back over the 9.5 years Republicans have been in control of Congress, we see education funding has skyrocketed by some $23 billion. That is an increase of more than 150 percent under the Republican Congress. Much of this increase in spending can be attributed to those programs in No Child Left Behind.

The most significant program the Federal Government operates to help disadvantaged children under No Child Left Behind is title I. Again this year we see another $1 billion increase in Title I, about 8 percent over last year's level. If we look at what has happened over the 4 years that the President has been in office, we will see these massive increases. But we can go back all of the way to the 10 years Republicans have been in Congress, and see that we have increased spending for Title I for disadvantaged children by some 96 percent. And the funding increases in just the first 2 years of President Bush's term in office far outstrip the 8 years of the previous administration. Title I increases are continuing. That is our commitment to helping the disadvantaged students in our society get the kind of education they all deserve.

Then we have special education. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, we were spending $2.3 billion a year to help special ed students around the country. This is 20 years after a Supreme Court case and Congress passing the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act but never really funding it. Over the last 10 years, we have increased funding from $2.3 billion to this year $11.1 billion. That is a 378 percent increase in help for those students with special needs.

I believe that the money we are spending to help our special-needs students and our disadvantaged students is money well spent because if we really truly believe no child should be left behind, the Federal Government has to do its share.

I am here to say that I believe the Federal Government is doing its share. We have had our increases over the last 4 years, we have kept our commitments to our Nation's students. I would ask all of my colleagues today to stand up and support these numbers and support our bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues on the other side, but I rise today in opposition to their amendment. And while they make it sound simple as it would normally be the case, there is nothing at all simple about the amendment that is being offered.

The 4010 information that is required to be submitted to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation would be for any defined benefit pension plan that has a negative balance actuarially of at least $50 million, and these could be public companies, they could be private companies. And the information that has to be supplied to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is not just information about where the pension fund is. It also includes all types of detailed information about the finances of the company itself.

For private companies who may be in this position, this is very sensitive information.

The reason we have not dealt with the issue as yet is we have been working on a long-term fix for the defined benefit pension plans. As we get into those conversations, we have had a number of hearings over the past couple of years, we passed the Pension Equity Funding Act earlier this year, signed by the President, to fix the most immediate problems.

But as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the author of the amendment, well knows, we have had a number of hearings last year and this year about the long-term problems facing defined benefit pension plans, a traditional pension plan, and what we hope to do is to have a bill next year that would revise all of the funding rules to make it easier for companies to comply with the rules and, most importantly, to ensure that companies are funding their pension plans.

As part of this overall bill, I think there may be a way to address the concerns raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) in terms of who the companies are or the extent of their pension issue, without disclosing all of the sensitive financial data that must be submitted to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Miller amendment, and my colleagues should know that a commitment is on my part to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and to all of my colleagues that we will address that portion that is not nearly as sensitive on the financial data as we deal with the broader overhaul of our defined pension benefit laws and regulations.

I would urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. Chairman, I rise before my colleagues today to urge support for the bill offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

In many respects, the use of broad-based stock options reflects what we have come to understand about our new economy, that is, that economic growth and opportunity are all about unleashing the talents, ideas and knowledge of workers who create constant improvements and constant innovation. The employers who have best answered this call and who have best generated the kinds of jobs that our workers need are those who have understood that these products and services come from bright, enterprising workers who will share their imagination and experience with their employers. That is why stock options have become such a fixture of economic growth, and it is important that we preserve the ability of employers to give their employees a stake in the success of their organization.

Regrettably, instead of recognizing stock option plans for what they are, incentive plans, FASB has deemed them a net cost to the company and supports requiring these firms to calculate and deduct those costs from corporate earnings. If companies do, the real losers in this will be American workers and the U.S. economy.

Who knows at what value companies will be required to charge their earnings? I think the point that was made by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) that the ability of corporate managers to manipulate earnings based on the value of their stock options is in fact a real concern.

So, while we can get hung up on whether we should interfere with FASB or not, we are elected by the American people to represent their interests; and I believe when you look at the use of broad-based stock options in the American economy, it really is the incentive that is driving many companies and their employees to be creative, to be inventive and to continue to be the real leaders in the world economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure, which demonstrates, once again, the unmatched value of trade liberalization and the shared benefits of free trade agreements.

Over the last year, many of my colleagues here in the House have sought to address the plight of domestic manufacturers who have trimmed payrolls as they adapt to a new economy driven by the productivity gains of new technology. In the quest for political points trade has been wrongfully vilified and talk has centered on erecting new barriers to trade. Today members have an opportunity to set aside this counterproductive rhetoric and put into action a manufacturing trade agreement--an agreement that will benefit all sectors of our economy.

Two-way trade between the two countries exceeds $25 billion and the U.S. enjoys a $6 billion dollar trade surplus. More importantly, upon entry into force, 99 percent of exported U.S. manufactured goods to Australia will become duty-free. Manufactured goods now account for nearly 93 percent of U.S. exports to Australia. For automakers, a cornerstone industry for Ohio, this agreement will sweeten an export market that is already dominated by U.S. cars and light trucks and presents an opportunity for even more growth.

Lower tariffs on American goods will mean job creation, job security, and money in the pockets of America's workforce. Last year Ohio joined Washington, California, Illinois, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, New York and Florida in the top 10 of exporting states to Australia. For my colleagues looking for even more reasons to vote in support of this agreement, you will discover some 19,000 companies that export to Australia

waiting for the opportunity to grow their business through lower tariffs and the removal of non-tariff trade barriers.

Those who search for any reason to be anti-trade are at a loss with this agreement because Australia maintains some of the highest labor standards and wage rates in the world. Sensitive agriculture products such as dairy and beef are protected with permanent safeguards and microscopic increases in tariff rate quotas. One commodity, sugar, is entirely exempted from the agreement. In short, those looking for reasons to oppose won't be able to find any.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement gives members that are concerned about job creation and manufacturing a chance to match their rhetoric with their vote. I urge members to support this agreement and vote yes.

Mr. Speaker, effective, fair vendor cost containment is critical to ensure that federal funds for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are managed appropriately. It is equally important that this objective be achieved with balance. WIC cost containment measures in S. 2507 should provide assurance that WIC-Only stores have prices that are consistent with traditional retail WIC vendors. It is the intent of Congress that the provisions of this bill be implemented in a fair and equitable manner. Cost containment measures contained in S. 2507 are not to be used to drive vendors out of the program.

Central to the vendor cost containment provisions is the authority to establish a series of vendor peer groups, each with its own competitive price criteria and allowable reimbursement levels. These vendor peer groups recognize that there are economic realities that cause pricing to vary among stores based on store size and geographic location. Large supermarket chains and box stores bypass wholesalers and purchase directly from manufacturers. Other stores, including some WIC-Only stores do not. Much more important, supermarket chains receive significant price discounts and concessions from manufacturers, such as allowances for product promotion, product shelf placement, etc. Independently owned stores, including independently owned chains and most WIC-Only stores, generally do not have the negotiating power to bargain for these benefits. As a result, independently owned stores may spend as much to purchase a product at wholesale as the retail price at a big chain. Because of this, vendor peer groups should allow for somewhat higher prices at small stores, relative to the larger supermarkets.

During implementation of vendor peer groups to achieve cost- containment, it is vital that transparent, objective criteria be used in defining peer group characteristics. It is expected that the criteria that have traditionally been used, the square footage of stores or the number of store registers, will continue to be used as appropriate. However, there is clear authority for adoption of other readily discernible, objective criteria that define appropriate peer group distinctions. WIC sales volume alone may not be an appropriate basis for defining peer groups since it accounts for only a portion of the sales of a given product and, in many situations, would be a poor indicator of factors that affect retail pricing decisions.

Special authority is provided for establishing competitive price criteria and allowable reimbursement levels for WIC-Only stores because those stores are insulated from marketplace price competition. It is not discriminatory to regulate them in a different manner. However, it would be inconsistent with the intent of Congress to use that unique regulatory treatment to apply a different standard to WIC-Only stores.

The objective of cost containment measures contained in S. 2507 is for WIC Program food costs to be the same regardless of whether program participants redeemed food instruments at a WIC-Only store or comparable market-based vendor. This neutrality objective is expressed by the dual statements in the bill: First, the bill provides for establishing and publishing competitive price criteria and allowable reimbursement levels that do not result in higher food costs in WIC- Only stores than in other authorized vendors. Second, the bill is clear that it is not to be construed to compel a State agency to achieve lower food costs in WIC-Only stores than in other authorized vendors. The objective is neutrality; for WIC-Only store costs to be at the same level as costs at comparable market-based vendors.

The language now before the House is different from the language reported by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, but the neutrality objective has been consistently pursued throughout this legislative process. Refinements in that language are intended to remove any question that the objective is cost neutrality.

S. 2507 includes language requiring that competitive price criteria and allowable reimbursement levels will ``not result in higher food costs if program participants redeem supplemental food vouchers'' at WIC-Only stores than other vendors. This language is a statement of the general cost neutrality objective previously explained. It is not to be construed to compel a rigid cost limitation test. Neither USDA nor individual states can know with absolute certainty or ongoing precision what food prices will be.

In the bill's system of vendor peer groups, provision is made for peer groups for WIC-Only stores. It does not necessarily require a single peer group for WIC-Only stores because not all WIC-Only stores are alike. WIC-Only store peer groups are to have their prices limited to the same levels as prices of comparable market-based stores. The legislation is not prescriptive in specifying characteristics that make stores ``comparable.'' However, as with the regulatory basis for defining peer groups, the basis for comparing peer groups must be objective and readily discernable. Absent compelling basis for a different approach, the same criteria as are used to distinguish between traditional vendor peer groups should be used to distinguish between peer groups in WIC-Only stores and to identify peer groups of comparable market-based stores.

Another provision that warrants close oversight is a prohibition on certain marketing practices for WIC-Only stores. The Department of Agriculture is charged with promulgation of a rule to prohibit WIC-Only stores from giving certain ``incentive items'' to WIC participants unless the vendor proves that the incentive items were obtained at no cost. The provision was adopted because of reports that some WIC-Only stores have given incentive items that are out of the bounds of traditional vendor marketing practices. It is the intent of this provision to halt such marketing practices and to ensure that the acquisition of incentive items does not increase WIC Program costs.

This provision is intended to prevent marketing practices that are wholly inconsistent with those that occur in traditional food retailing. It is not intended that this provision would be used to create a situation where WIC-Only stores are prohibited from employing the same marketing practices that traditional stores use to induce customers. The fact that this restriction applies only to WIC-Only stores must not be viewed as an intention to create marketing restrictions that afford traditional vendors a competitive advantage over WIC-Only stores. The Secretary has authority in its implementing rulemaking to require a State Agency to waive restrictions on marketing practices of WIC-Only stores where competing traditional vendors engage in those practices.

The bill makes clear that merchandise of nominal value and food are not to be prohibited. Likewise, this provision does not provide authority to restrict incentives other than free merchandise. Specifically, it does not authorize restriction of services provided to program participants that are attendant to the redemption of supplemental food vouchers, such as assistance in complying with WIC program rules as they select their purchases or assistance in getting the food to their transportation or home, even if traditional vendors do not provide such services. The provision only authorizes restriction of use of non-food merchandise in marketing practices; it does not authorize restriction of retail services. Therefore, the Department of Agriculture rulemaking is to prohibit merchandise gifts that are inconsistent with marketing practices of the traditional food retail trade, but not marketing practices that are employed by other authorized vendors.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for including vendor provisions in S. 2507 that will provide for effective cost containment, particularly in WIC-Only stores that are generally insulated from marketplace price competition. This bill does a commendable job in providing fair and balanced regulation. WIC-Only stores

have become very popular with WIC participants because of their convenience and service. That should continue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my constituents and friends in Troy, Ohio to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the U.P.C. bar code. When a pack of Wrigley's chewing gum was scanned by a cashier at the Marsh Supermarket in Troy on June 26, 1974, few understood the impact this simple action would have. Thirty years later, we now know.

It's amazing that the 59 black and white bars and 12 numbers of a U.P.C. bar code could have saved consumers, retailers, and manufacturers more than a trillion dollars over these three decades, but it's true. The U.P.C. bar code has revolutionized global commerce, and I am so proud to say it all started back in the state of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, the Uniform Code Council and Marsh Supermarkets will join together tomorrow to celebrate this 30th Anniversary. Troy's Mayor Michael Beamish will offer a proclamation making June 25, 2004 ``U.P.C. Bar Code Day,'' and since I will be unable to join them, let me use this moment to send my very best to everyone involved in the celebration. From the invention of flight to the use of the very first U.P.C. bar code, Ohio continues to prove itself a true center of innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2507) to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to provide children with increased access to food and nutrition assistance, to simplify program operations and improve program management, to reauthorize child nutrition programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, which represents months of hard work and commitment to bipartisan cooperation.

In that spirit we have before us a bill that will extend the life of the Federal child nutrition programs while strengthening program integrity, ensuring effective use of Federal resources, and providing continued nutritional services for millions of American children. And I am pleased to have reached a bipartisan, bicameral consensus that finally will allow the President to sign these important reforms into law.

First and foremost, I want to recognize the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman; and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), ranking member of the Education Reform Subcommittee, who deserve a great deal of credit for their hard work and cooperation that have brought this bill before us today. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the committee, for his continued commitment to a bipartisan, cooperative process.

The Federal child nutrition programs ensure millions of needy children have access to nutritious meals. While we all know that a healthful diet is necessary for children to achieve full physical development and long-term health and is critical for academic success as well in school, for this reason the investment in these programs is considerable. And so is our obligation to ensure our Federal resources are being used effectively and efficiently. Children and families depend on Federal child nutrition programs, and they depend on us to ensure that these programs are being administered with integrity.

The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act extends the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs; Child and Adult Care Food Program; After-School Snack Program; the Summer Food Service Program; and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the WIC program. Taken together, the reforms in this bill will help ensure we are making the most of Federal resources to improve the nutritional health of children while being mindful of program quality and integrity.

The bill before us strikes an important balance between our desire to promote healthy nutritional choices and physical activity among children and the need to preserve local control for our schools. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the House version of this legislation, has been a leader in our efforts to reduce the epidemic of child obesity by promoting a comprehensive approach that includes nutrition education and physical activity. In particular, the establishment of a local wellness policy, written at the local level to reflect local needs, marks significant progress that will promote nutrition education and increased physical activity in schools while maintaining local control.

To improve integrity in the Federal child nutrition programs and ensure access for eligible children, the legislation makes a number of positive reforms. The bill allows children whose parents who are in the Armed Forces and living in privatized military housing to continue to receive free or reduced-price meals at school if they meet the eligibility requirements. It also helps parents by allowing them to submit a single application for multiple children and ensures enrollment of eligible children through the use of direct certification of school lunch eligibility for those children and families receiving food stamps.

The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act also takes steps to reduce paperwork by allowing school lunch certifications to be valid for 1 full year, preventing situations in which schools are forced to repeatedly certify children within a single school year. The bill also includes a provision originally proposed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) to help reduce the stigma amongst children receiving free and reduced-priced lunches by helping schools make technological improvements, such as automated meal card systems that keep students' financial status confidential to increase the efficiency of program operations.

In recognition of the success and popularity of the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot program, which currently provides fresh and dried fruits and fresh vegetables to children in 25 schools in each of four States and one Indian reservation, I am pleased that the bill before us authorizes the continuation and expansion of this valuable pilot program.

And since this measure originally passed the House, we have worked closely with Members on both sides of the aisle and in both legislative bodies to reach a consensus, which is embodied in the bill that we have before us today. And through that process, we have reached an agreement on additional reforms that will further strengthen and improve child nutrition programs. We have included a demonstration program that will allow us to evaluate the impact of eliminating the reduced-price meal category, an initiative many of us are interested in exploring, and authorize six additional States, including my home State of Ohio, to participate in the Lugar pilot program under the Summer Feeding Program.

Additionally, I am pleased to have reached a commonsense solution to address concerns about the most efficient use of taxpayer resources particularly within the WIC program. The bill includes strong cost- containment measures to ensure that WIC food costs and voucher payments are consistent with competitive retail prices for supplemental foods. And this will ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars while protecting our ability to serve the greatest number of eligible women, infants, and children.

The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act will prevent important nutritional programs from expiring while ensuring that they continue to operate effectively and efficiently. And I am pleased to support this measure and would encourage my colleagues to do so.

There are a number of staff members from our committee who I believe deserve special recognition and thanks. And they include Stephanie Milburn, Krisann Pearce, Cindy Herrle, Julian Baer, Denise Forte, Linda Theif. And I also want to thank Tyson Redpath on my staff and Sarah Rittling on the gentleman from Delaware's (Mr. Castle) staff. And Kate Houston, she wrote it. Kate Houston spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours over this last year shepherding this and working with staff on both sides of the aisle. And I think all of our colleagues realize that we could not do the job that we do as Members without having terrific staff, and on our committee we have got terrific staff on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank all of them.

I include letters for the Record.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, June 21, 2004.

Hon. John Boehner,

Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Boehner: As you are aware, the Senate

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry reported S.

2507, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of

2004, on June 7. As reported, S. 2507 contains matters within

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture.

Section 104(b)(2) amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977, and

section 301 amends the Commodity Distribution Reform Act and

WIC Amendments of 1987. Both the Food Stamp Act and the

Commodity Distribution Act are within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Agriculture. In the interest of expediting this

matter, however, our committee will not seek referral of S.

2507. I do so with the understanding that by discharging the

bill the Committee on Agriculture does not waive any future

jurisdictional claim over this or similar measures. In

addition, in the event a conference with the Senate is

requested on this matter, the Committee on Agriculture

reserves the right to seek appointment of conferees, if one

should become necessary.

I also ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of

letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of

S. 2507 on the Floor.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.